Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Surrey (Chertsey Division), in the room of Major Sir Archibald Boyd Boyd-Carpenter, deceased.—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Waltham Holy Cross Urban District Council Bill [Lords].

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give particulars as to what extent lives or property of British subjects in China have been adversely affected during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and what steps have been taken further to safeguard them?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): No British subjects have been kidnapped or murdered in China during the last 12 months. Beyond this it is not possible for me to answer the question. All possible efforts are made to safeguard the lives and property of British subjects, but it is not practicable to detail all the steps taken. I may, however, mention that the British subjects in Sian were evacuated successfully in January when that town was threatened with civil war.

Mr. Day: Do the reports which the right hon. Gentleman has received as to the conditions in the interior show that they are somewhat disturbed?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the particulars

on what terms Germany and Italy consented to be represented again on the Non-Intervention Committee; and whether, failing any agreement, any advice has been received by the committee to the effect that Italy proposes to consent to the despatch of further volunteers to Spain?

Mr. Eden: I am arranging to place in the Library of the House a copy of the terms of the agreement which was reached on Saturday last on the subject of the conditions necessary for the continued operation by all four Powers of the naval patrol scheme. As a result of this agreement I am glad to be able to tell the House that information has just reached me that the German and Italian Governments have decided to resume, as from to-day, full participation both in the work of the Non-Intervention Committee and in the work of naval observation in Spanish waters. The House will note that the two Governments have now taken this action in advance of the receipt of the assurances which have been asked for from the two parties in Spain.

Mr. Thorne: Does the reply mean that the Germans and Italians are going to supply no more war material?

Mr. Eden: It means, I trust, that they are going to join with us in trying to ensure that no war material is supplied.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: Has the agreement been formally approved by the Non-Intervention Committee?

Mr. Eden: The document was sent to the Non-Intervention Committee.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether answers have been received from General Franco to protests made by His Majesty's Government on 4th January, 12th January, 13th February, 30th March, and 28th April, 1937; and, if so, whether they will be published?

Mr. Eden: Protests were addressed to the Insurgent authorities on 4th January regarding interference at sea with the Steamship "Blackhill," and on 30th March regard interference with the Steamship "Springwear," and replies were received to both notes. I have not been able to trace the other protests to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Bellenger: Has a reply been received to the protest regarding the damage to His Majesty's Ship "Hunter"?

Mr. Eden: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Mander: Have these replies been published?

Mr. Eden: No. I am not anxious that they should be, because I think we are still negotiating on these matters.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will name the Governments which have been consulted on the proposed inquiry into the bombardment of Guernica; and whether any replies have now been received?

Mr. Eden: The Governments consulted were the French, German, Italian, Soviet and Portuguese Governments. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Monday last.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman state which Governments have replied to the message of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Eden: I should like notice of that question.

Miss Rathbone: Have the Basque Government and the insurgent forces also replied as to whether they are willing to consent to an inquiry such as is proposed?

Mr. Henderson: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed the second part of my question, asking whether any replies have been received? May we not be told which Governments have replied?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman asked whether any replies have been received. My impression is that only one reply is outstanding, but I should like to check the matter up.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Are the Government in earnest in trying to get at the truth of this horrible barbarity?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, but it is quite impossible for one Government to act without co-operation with the others.

Miss Rathbone: Have the insurgent leaders consented to such an inquiry? We

understand that the Basque Government have consented.

Mr. Eden: I was asked about the answers of non-Spanish Governments.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Non-Intervention Committee is taking any steps to prevent foreign submarines being used on either side in the Spanish civil war?

Mr. Eden: The Non-Intervention Agreement prohibits, among other things, the despatch of foreign vessels of war for the purpose of taking part in the Spanish conflict.

Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Spanish Government have repeatedly alleged that foreign submarines are being used in the civil war; and does he not fear another international incident if something is not done?

Mr. Eden: I am always conscious of the danger of an international incident in connection with Spain.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that General Franco offered that the old men, women and children of Bilbao should be evacuated to a zone west of Bilbao under guarantee from the International Red Cross, and that such zone would not be used for military purposes; whether this offer was conveyed to His Majesty's Government; and whether any steps were taken to provide such an asylum on Spanish soil under guarantee of the Red Cross before thousands of Spanish children were taken from their parents and removed to foreign countries?

Mr. Eden: A proposal to this effect was contained in the reply received from the insurgent authorities to the communication made to them by His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye, in which notification was given of the steps which His Majesty's Government proposed to take to protect Basque refugee ships. His Majesty's Ambassador accordingly inquired of the insurgent authorities whether their proposal constituted an offer of subsidiary action to that which was then being taken, and whether it might be put before the Basque authorities with a view to the opening of negotiations. At the same time, unofficial inquiries were made


by His Majesty's Consul at Bilbao, from whom it was, however, learnt that the Basque authorities did not regard the proposal as a practicable one, on the grounds that there were no villages between Bilbao and Santander capable of housing large numbers of persons, no water and no sanitary arrangements, and that the position of refugees might become untenable in the event of an insurgent advance in the direction of Santander. The insurgent authorities, as a result of the steps which had already been taken, subsequently made it clear that they were themselves no longer interested in the proposal, and it was, therefore, felt that no useful purpose would be served by pursuing it any further.

Sir H. Croft: Is it not a fact that in a similar situation General Franco asked the Valencia Government whether women and children could be evacuated to a sanctuary in another province, and that this was refused on the ground that it would be contrary to the military situation?

Mr. Eden: I have seen reports to that effect. In this case, of course, our intervention was called for, and that is why I had to state our position.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the children referred to in this question as having been taken from their parents have no parents, because they have been orphaned by the bombs of Franco?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the number of foreign nationals serving with the Spanish insurgent forces is estimated to be approximately 120,000 men, including 80,000 Italians and 29,000 Germans, and serving in the Spanish Government forces approximately 20,000 foreign nationals, including 15,000 in the international brigade; and whether he is in a position to make any further statement with regard to their withdrawal?

Mr. Eden: I have frequently informed the House that I am not in a position to give authoritative figures of the numbers of foreign combatants serving on either side in Spain, but I must not be taken as accepting the estimate given in the hon. Member's question. As regards the proposals now under consideration for the

withdrawal of foreign volunteers, I have nothing at present to add to the statement which I made in reply to questions by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on 2nd June and 9th June.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not possible to obtain some information on this point from the Non-Intervention Committee?

Mr. Eden: I very much doubt whether they would be prepared to vouch for figures any more than I am.

Mr. Henderson: Have not the Committee drawn up a draft scheme, and must they not have some estimate of the numbers of foreign nationals?

Captain Cazalet: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the figures mentioned in the question are grossly exaggerated?

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Are the Government in the least degree interested in the continued defiance of the Non-Intervention Agreement by the Fascist Powers, and are not they themselves conniving at it?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a proper question.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many consular or other British Government representatives there are now in Spain; and what are the principal towns in which these representatives are located?

Mr. Eden: There are two diplomatic officers at Valencia and 48 consular officers in Spain, including its dependencies and the Spanish Zone of Morocco, distributed in 29 posts, the principal towns in which these posts are established being Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao, Malaga, Seville, Teneriffe, Valencia and Vigo.

Mr. Riley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman receive information from these representatives in their respective districts as to what is happening in the civil war?

Mr. Eden: Yes, I receive information in the ordinary course.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to whether any German or Italian combatants have been


landed in Spain since 20th February of this year; if so, can he state, approximately, the number of such combatants; and whether any munitions of war, guns or aeroplanes, from Germany or Italy have entered Spain since 20th February and, if so, the approximate quantity?

Mr. Eden: During the earlier stages of the conflict in Spain numbers of foreign combatants and material reached both sides in Spain from abroad, though I am not in a position to give an authoritative estimate of the numbers or quantities involved. Since the agreement of 10th February concerning volunteers our information goes to show that the flow of foreign nationals to Spain has been checked. The hon. Member will, moreover, be aware that His Majesty's Government have proposed further measures for preventing further foreign combatants or supplies of war material from reaching Spain, and that the scheme of international supervision was drawn up for this purpose. His Majesty's Government will continue to work with this aim in view, and notably to secure agreement on the withdrawal of all foreign combatants.

Mr. Riley: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question whether foreign nationals have landed since 20th February, and has he seen a statement published in Rome that thousands of wounded have returned from Spain to Italy, and does he think all these men went to Spain before 20th February?

Mr. Eden: Since the agreement of 20th February our information goes to show that the flow of foreign nationals to Spain has been checked.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Has my right hon. Friend seen the account, also published in Rome, of the ships that have left Odessa since 20th February laden with guns and aeroplanes for Spain, and is it not conceivable that both reports are equally true or untrue?

Mr. Cocks: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have any more supplementaries on this question.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to arrange, through the Non-Intervention Committee or otherwise, for any guarantees to be given to the Spanish

Government against the further landing of foreign troops or shelling by foreign battleships?

Mr. Eden: I have already stated that the Board for Non-Intervention have received no evidence of foreign combatants having actually been landed since the Observation Agreement came into force. As regards the second part of the question, it is our view that the proposals contained in the agreement reached in London on Saturday last should prevent incidents of the character to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Mander: Is not the Spanish Government just as much entitled to guarantees against German invasion and attack on battleships as the German Government is from Spanish attack?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Member will read my answer he will see that point dealt with.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the bombardment of Bilbao by large numbers of German and Italian aeroplanes has been brought to the notice of the Nonintervention Committee?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Captain Cazalet: Has my right hon. Friend any information about other breaches of non-intervention, and the arrival of large numbers of aeroplanes to help the Spanish Government?

Mr. Eden: I should like to make it plain that the Government are not satisfied with the working of the Non-Intervention scheme. At the same time it has been come to by agreement between all the European Powers in the interest of peace in Europe. I think the House would wish to consider very carefully before taking any action which might imperil that agreement.

Mr. Benn: Is it or is it not true, as stated in responsible newspapers, that Bilbao is being wiped out by relays of German aeroplanes?

Mr. Eden: It is true that there are large numbers of foreign aeroplanes on both sides.

Miss Wilkinson: Is it a fact that the Press in this country that supports the Government has, in fact, been blaming the Madrid Government because there


are no aeroplanes defending Bilbao, and is it fair in those circumstances to say that there are aeroplanes on both sides?

Mr. Eden: I did not say that the Basque Government had aeroplanes at Bilbao. I said the Spanish Government had aeroplanes.

Miss Wilkinson: Is it a fact that it is being stated that the Valencia Government—

Mr. Speaker: This is becoming an argument.

Miss Wilkinson: I was being interrupted by the other side. I really am only asking for information, because I think the Foreign Secretary has misunderstood my original question. I only want to ask whether it is not the Basque Government but the Valencia Government which has not sent planes to Bilbao?

Mr. Eden: The only point that I made was that there were foreign aeroplanes on both sides.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he can now give full information in connection with the bombing of the German battleship "Deutschland"; the nature of the bombs dropped, whether armour piercing or light cased; the- casualties caused to the crew; the damage done to the ship and fittings; the number of aircraft engaged in the attack; the number of bombs dropped and the number of hits obtained; whether the "Deutschland is provided with anti-aircraft guns, and, if so, how many and of what type; whether it is known from what altitude the bombs were dropped; and were the anti-aircraft guns of the battleship brought into action against the hostile aircraft at any time when making these attacks;
(2)whether he has any information of the nationality and the type of aircraft used in the attack on the German battleship "Deutschland."

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): There is very little I can add to the official German statement which has already appeared in the Press. The hon. and gallant Member must bear in mind that no British ships were present when the "Deutschland" was attacked.

According to the German statement, the attack was carried out by two aircraft which dropped several bombs, two of which took effect. It was also stated that the aircraft were flying low; that as they were approaching against the sun, it was impossible to distinguish their markings or type, and that no shot was fired either by the "Deutschland" or the torpedo boat "Leopard" which was lying alongside the Mole. I am able to add to the foregoing the information that the casualties dealt with at Gibraltar amount to 28 dead and 51 wounded; also that it is believed there were in addition four dead and nine injured who were landed at Iviza. The first bomb is believed to have pierced the upper deck and exploded on the armoured deck beneath causing many casualties amongst the men on the mess deck. The second bomb apparently struck the shield of the fore 5.9 in. gun. I have no information as to the type of aircraft or bomb employed. I understand that the anti-aircraft armament of the "Deutschland" consists of six 3.5 in., eight 1.46 in. and ten machine guns.

Mr. H. Morrison: What were the German ships doing in this part of Spain?

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND (BRITISH SUBJECTS' VISIT).

Captain Cazalet: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affais whether he has any further statement to make in regard to the recent attempts of Mr. Hervey and Mr. Lonsdale to buy arms in Finland?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I understand that the Marquess of Donegall has stated that he went to Finland in his professional capacity as a journalist to investigate the arms-dealing activities or potential activities of Mr. Hervey and Mr. Lonsdale, and that it was in that capacity that he was present at certain conferences which took place between these two gentlemen and Finnish officials. I naturally accept this statement. I would, however, point out that it is scarcely surprising that it should not originally have been apparent that such was the Noble Lord's position, in view of the circumstances attending his visit to Finland and his calls at His Majesty's Legation, in the company of Mr. Hervey and Mr. Lonsdale.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OIL FUEL.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much oil is used annually by the ships of the Royal Navy; what are the sources of supply; and what is the amount of tonnage required for its import?

Mr. Cooper: As regards the annual consumption of oil fuel by ships of the Royal Navy, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the last First Lord, to the question asked by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) on 29th April. As regards the second part of the question, the main sources of supply are Iran and Trinidad, and there are small local purchases chiefly from Borneo and the United States of America. As regards the third part, the Admiralty's fleet of tankers engaged on the import and distribution of oil consists of 27 vessels averaging approximately 9,000 tons cargo capacity each.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does that fleet of tankers suffice for these imports of oil?

Mr. Cooper: In normal times that fleet will suffice.

ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS (PROMOTION).

Sir Robert Young: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many engine-room artificers have recently passed the examinations for sub-lieutenant (E); whether any of these have been promoted; and, if not, will he say why no promotions have been given?

Mr. Cooper: Six engine-room artificers passed the qualifying examination for promotion to acting sub-lieutenant (E) which was held in October, 1935, and II at that held in October, 1936. Of the former, four were promoted to acting sub-lieutenant (E) last July. A selection board to consider candidates for promotion next month will sit very shortly.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what amount of pension per week is payable to the widow of a lower-deck man if he is killed on active service, as in the recent accident to His Majesty's Ship "Hunter," and if he is killed in the execution of his duty in normal corcumstances?

Mr. Cooper: The amount of pension payable to the widow would be the same in either of the instances mentioned by the hon. Member, and would vary between 10s. 6d. a week and 26s. a week, according to the age and circumstances of the widow and the rating or rank of the man. In addition, 5s. a week would be payable in respect of each child under the age of 16.

OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Sir M. Sueter: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in computing the long overdue marriage allowance for naval officers, he can give an assurance that the basic pay of lieutenant-commanders will not be unduly cut by reason of the so-called phantom allowances that, according to some theories, compose part of naval pay; and whether he will see that the elements composing the official computations of naval pay are as real as in the case of the emoluments of Army and Air Force officers?

Mr. Cooper: My hon. and gallant Friend can rest assured that the points referred to in the question and all other relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTIGUA AND MONTSERRAT.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the newly-elected councils of Antigua and Montserrat have yet met; if not, when they will meet; and what business has been, or will be, placed before them?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The newly-elected councils of Antigua and Montserrat met for the first time on 10th May when they passed addresses of loyalty to His Majesty the King. I am not aware what other business was or will be placed before them, but it would no doubt be of the nature of that ordinarily transacted by a Colonial Legislature.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

JEWISH IMMIGRATION.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any and, if so, what difficulties are being put in the way of the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association by the Government in their efforts to break up the large


holdings on their own lands so as to secure more intensive cultivation and an opportunity for more men to work on the land?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The High Commissioner informs me that he is not aware of any difficulties placed in the way of the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association by the Government in this respect, and that the local representative of the Association is not aware of any such difficulties.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that intense disappointment is felt by the Jewish community in Palestine at the small proportions of the labour allocation, which bears no relation to the economic absorptive capacity of the country which was to have governed the regulation of labour immigrants; and what steps are proposed to remove this discontent and prevent any check to expanding industry and the investment of capital in Palestine?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am unable to add anything to the reply which I gave, to the hon. Member for. Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 9th June, except that I cannot accept the assertion in the hon. Gentleman's question that the labour schedule bears no relation to the economic absorptive capacity of the country. It was fixed in fact in accordance with this very condition.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that there is serious discontent in Palestine owing to the shortage of labour required through the allocation of the numbers permitted?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir; certainly not. I am aware that there are both Jewish and Arab unemployed on a considerable scale, and that that is the reason; and so far from there being a shortage of labour, there is an excess of labour.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the economic capacity of Palestine for the next six months is only 220?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir. The High Commissioner and his advisers assess the economic absorptive capacity for the present four months, April to July inclusive, at 670.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does my right hon. Friend realise that any measures that may later be taken to safeguard the interests of Arab labour will receive overwhelming support in this House and the country; And does he not deprecate questions of this kind prior to the publication of the Palestine Report?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is not a question of safeguarding Arab and Jewish labour, but of the accurate interpretation of a basic document, namely, the MacDonald letter, which governs the rate of immigration of any kind into Palestine at six-monthly intervals.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that we are not abusing our Mandatory powers?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir, absolutely.

ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATIONS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there has been any recurrence of terrorism in Palestine and, if so, of what nature; and what is the present position in this respect?

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to the attempt on the life of Colonel Spicer; whether any arrests have been made; and whether any of the Arabs recently released from Acre gaol are suspected?

Colonel Nathan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to give any information as to the recent attempt on the life of Colonel R. G. B. Spicer, Inspector-General of Police in Palestine?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have received the following report from the High Commissioner for Palestine regarding an attempt, which was, I am happy to say, unsuccessful, to assassinate the British Inspector-General of Police on 13th June:
Deliberate attempt to assassinate Spicer this morning failed. So far as can be ascertained at present three Arab assassins fired about eight shots at close quarters into the car in which Spicer was being driven from the Police Headquarters, Jerusalem, wounding the driver, Police Constable Milner, in the arm, but missing Spicer. Investigation is proceeding,
I have also received a report that an unsuccessful attempt was made at Jenin on 18th May to assassinate a Palestinian


sub-inspector of police. Apart from these two grave incidents, the High Commissioner reports a continuance of the improvement in the situation to which I referred in reply to questions on 24th May.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister quite satisfied that additional police protection is not now required?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. Very considerable increases in the numbers of police under the command of Colonel Spicer have been authorised in Palestine in the last few months.

Colonel Wedgwood: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that not long ago the assistant inspector of police at Haifa was murdered after several attempts had been made to murder him, and may I ask, must Colonel Spicer also be sacrificed before the right hon. Gentleman will deport the Mufti or recall the High Commissioner?

ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed at any stage to consult with the Dominions as signatories of the Treaty of Versailles, and particularly with the Union of South Africa, on the policy to be adopted as the result of the report of the Royal Commission on Palestine?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, as the Government holding the Mandate, will be responsible for deciding the policy, but His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and the Government of India will be kept informed of developments and of the policy which it is proposed to adopt.

Mr. Mander: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the views expressed by General Smuts on the situation, and will he take them into consideration?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: General Smuts and General Hertzog have communicated with me in the past and so has the representative of the Government of India at the Imperial Conference. I fully realise their interest in this matter.

PETAH TIQUA (COMMUNAL SETTLEMENTS).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (I) whether he will explain why the communal settlements in the Petah Tiqua area are excluded from the Petah Tiqua Muni-

cipal Council; and will he state whether the workers on the settlements were consulted before the sub-division was made;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the Second Schedule to the Order under the Local Councils (Petah Tiqua Rural Area) 1937, recently promulgated in Palestine; whether his approval was given for the conditions attached to voting power, and, if so, will he state why ownership of land was made a qualification; why the owner of 10 dunarus is allowed one vote while a co-operative society of settlers can only have one vote for 100 dunarus; and why a tenant farmer cannot vote at all unless he secures the consent of the landowner?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will ask the High Commissioner for a report on the matters referred to and will communicate with I he hon. Member on receipt of the High Commissioner's reply.

Mr. Williams: May I ask whether in communicating with the High Commissioner, if it is found that, as stated in the question, the workers are definitely being placed at a terrible disadvantage electorally, the right hon. Gentleman will look into it?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will certainly look into that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA.

MOTOR TRANSPORT (LICENCE FEES).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to indicate what is his attitude towards the request of the Nigerian Motor Transport Union for a reduction of the double-licence fees imposed upon its members and for representation on the transport advisory board?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have not yet received the report from the Governor of Nigeria which I am expecting, and I have recently addressed him on the subject.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that from the month of March to the month of June is a very long time even to deal with a matter affecting Nigeria; and will he see that the matter is expedited?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Only last week I said that a further request had been made to the Governor for a report.

IJEBU PROVINCE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to indicate his attitude towards the suggested partition of the Ijebu province, Nigeria; and whether he intends to turn clown the proposal in view of the strong opposition of the large majority of people affected?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Governor of Nigeria has reported that before submitting the matter for my consideration, he is awaiting representations from the party opposed to the proposal to make a portion of the existing Ijebu province independent of the remainder. I am not, therefore, able to indicate my attitude on this question at present.

Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider a very large amount of evidence that I can show him in opposition to this proposal?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Gladly, Sir. I gather that there is both support for and opposition to the partition in the Ijebu province.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on any measures to be taken to meet the demand for reform in Trinidad, in particular in regard to the questions of federation with the neighbouring Colonies, the social services, the nationalisation of the oil industry, reform of municipal government, the position of the small cane-farmers, and the payment of members of the Legislative Council?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The many matters in question have been recently brought to my notice, and I am communicating with the Governor of Trinidad with regard to them severally. I cannot, therefore, make any comprehensive statement covering so many points in reply to a Parliamentary Question.

Mr. Lunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with me when he gets a reply from the Governor as to what is the position with regard to these points?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. Gentleman sees that it covers almost all the points which can be raised in regard to Trinidad,

and they are identical with the points drawn to my attention by Captain Cipriani when he was over here. They raise matters of the Constitution, the oil industry and many other matters which cannot be dealt with by means of Parliamentary Question and Answer.

Mr. Lunn: Are all these points being considered at the present time?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly.

Mr. Lunn: When the right hon. Gentleman gets information of importance, will he let me know what it is?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Gladly.

Mr. Leach: While the right hon. Gentleman says that these points have only recently been brought to his attention, does he not recollect that some of them were introduced 15 years ago?

Oral Answers to Questions — ASHANTI.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take respecting the almost complete evacuation of the district of Ejisu, Ashanti; and to what extent the natives previously in that district have migrated to the eastern province as an act of protest against the destoolment of the Ejisuhene by the Ashanti Confederacy Council?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No report to the effect stated has reached me. I will, however, communicate with the Governor.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELANGOR (UNEMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that evidence given at the recent inquiry into the incidence of unemployment in the State of Selangor showed that there were over 2,000 unemployed clerks and their dependants needing assistance, including one-tenth of the total Eurasian population, among those persons who had had at least eight years' continuous employment in the State; and whether he is prepared to supplement, from the Federated Malay States' large surplus, the private charitable relief, given in rice and milk with only three or four dollars cash allowance per month per person, which makes no allowance for rent, clothing, schooling, or other necessities of life?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have not seen the evidence to which the hon. Member refers, but the report of the committee which carried out the investigation states that it was estimated that the total number of unemployed persons living in the State of Selangor at the time of the inquiry was not greater than 400, or .07 per cent. of the total population of the State, and that of this number 22 per cent., that is, 88 persons, were Eurasians, out of a Eurasian population of over 2,300. The committee recommended various remedial measures, which are now under consideration by the local Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (NATIVE TAXATION).

Mr. Banfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as regards the scope of the committee which has been set up in Kenya in connection with Sir Alan Pim's recommendation for the reduction of payment on account of extra huts?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The committee in question was appointed by the Governor in Council in an order dated 1st May with the following terms of reference:
To review and report upon the conditions which led to Sir Alam Pim's recommendation in paragraph 408 (1) of his report for 'the reduction of the payment on account of extra huts,' and to advise as to the adoption of this recommendation in the manner indicated in paragraph 76 of that report, or in any modified form; due regard being paid to that part of paragraph 110 of the Walsh-Montgomery Report on Native Taxation which refers to the status of women as taxpayers.

The personnel of the committee is as follows:

The Chief Native Commissioner (Chairman).
The Acting Treasurer.
Mr. Conway Harvey.
The Reverend R. G. M. Calderwood.
Secretary: The Acting Clerk to Councils.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

HANWORTH AERODROME (LOW FLYING).

Sir Reginald Blaker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of complaints of low flying in the neighbourhod of Hanworth Aerodrome; whether he has investigated any of such complaints; whether they are well

founded; and what action, if any, he has taken or proposes to take in the matter?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): Complaints have occasionally been received regarding low flying in the neighbourhood of Han-worth. Whenever a machine could be identified the complaint has been taken up with the firm or pilot concerned. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Air Navigation Order, which prescribes the altitude at which aircraft may fly over towns, necessarily excepts the approaches to a licensed aerodrome in order to permit of machines taking off and landing.

SCANDINAVIA SERVICE.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet made representations to Imperial Airways, Limited, that they should encourage British passengers desirous of flying to Scandinavia to fly by British airways in preference to German, French, Belgian, or Dutch air-lines; and, if so, with what result?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am in course of discussing this matter with Imperial Airways, and have no statement to make.

Mr. Perkins: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the present arrangement results in two companies being subsidised by the Government and competing with each other?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am aware of the position.

MAYBURY COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can now indicate the extent and location of recent developments in wireless, meteorological and control facilities, consequent upon the findings of the Maybury Committee?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I regret that I cannot at present add to the information which I gave to my hon. and learned Friend on 2nd June last.

Mr. Lyons: Is the Minister aware that many proposals for the establishment of new civil aerodromes are being hung up pending a statement on this matter, and can he give the House an assurance that a statement will shortly be made as to what has taken place since the Committee reported?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: All the recommendations of the Maybury Committee are being considered with due expedition, and no time is unnecessarily being lost.

Mr. Lyons: Will the hon. and gallant Member tell us precisely in which airport anything has been done since the publication of the report?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I have said that all the recommendations of the May-bury Committee are being comprehensively considered.

Mr. Lyons: Can the hon. and gallant Member say when they will become effective?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Day: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many deaths have occurred in the Royal Air Force from flying accidents during the previous six months; and how many of these deaths occurred in flying-machines that were not fitted with safety-slot devices?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The figures asked for are 65 and 16.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether, where fatal accidents have taken place, the pilots were supplied with parachutes?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That another question.

CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the inquiries into the alleged violation of the fair-wages clause by Messrs. F. W. Rigby and Company have yet been completed; and, if so with what result?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The enquiries are progressing, but are not yet completed.

Mr. McEntee: Seeing that the inquiry has been proceeding now for eight weeks, can we have any hope of a report on the inquiry within the lifetime of this Parliament?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think it is probable.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

EAST HAM AND BARKING BY-PASS (CYCLE TRACKS).

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the Minister of Transport when the arterial road to Dagenham from the Beckton Road will be widened and cycling tracks provided?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): A grant has been made from the Road Fund towards the cost of providing a second carriageway and cycle tracks along a mile and a quarter of the East Ham and Barking by-pass (in Barking), and the Essex County Council hope that work will be started this year. I am in touch with the West Ham and East Ham Corporations as to the section west of this length, but no scheme has yet been submitted to me. Proposals are under discussion with the Essex County Council for widening the eastern continuation in the direction of Dagenham.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that when these cycle tracks are made some steps should be taken to make the cyclists use them?

Mr. Groves: Is it not a fact that the reason that our road is not proceeded with is that the Minister of Transport has laid down terms at West Ham that we cannot meet?

Mr. Burgin: In regard to cycle tracks, I think we must wait until we have a considerable continuous length of tracks before we talk about the obligation to use the track.

Sir C. MacAndrew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that where there are cycle tracks they are very largely not used by cyclists?

Mr. Burgin: That is so, but there are not yet continuous cycle tracks which will permit of the matter being dealt with comprehensively. I hope that every encouragement will be given to cyclists to use the cycle tracks, and I am anxious that long and continuous cycle tracks should be made available before we go into the matter on a large scale.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that intense resentment will be expressed at any attempt being made to use compulsion?

Mr. Maxton: Has the right hon. Gentleman received representations from cyclist organisations on this matter? If he has not, is he prepared to meet them and to discuss the whole question?

Mr. Burgin: Deputations have been received, and the views of the cyclists are perfectly well known. I wish to encourage cyclists to use these tracks. I am anxious to get more long and continuous tracks before we deal with the matter comprehensively.

DISUSED TRAM TRACKS.

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether, from the point of view of safety, he has arrived at a decision in respect of the retention or otherwise of the tram track rails on roads where the tramways are replaced by trolley-omnibuses;
(2) whether, having regard to the concern of his Department in all main roads of the country, both structurally and financially, consultations took place between his departmental engineers, those of the London Passenger Transport Board, and those of the local authorities concerned in respect to the amount of money to be paid to local authorities where tram-rails are in such a condition that they can safely be left on the roads where tramcars are superseded by trolley-omnibuses?

Mr. Burgin: The condition of the track and its relation to the road surface must govern the question whether a disused tram track can be retained temporarily pending reconstruction of the road. The liability of the London Passenger Transport Board in this matter is governed by Section 23 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, as amended by Section 90 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1936.

Mr. Groves: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of question 42 as to whether there has been any consultation with the engineers, and is he aware of the arrangement in certain London areas which is throwing a heavy financial burden on the authorities?

Mr. Burgin: That supplementary question raises a point which goes a good deal further than the matter to which I have been asked to give a reply.

Mr. Groves: No. Will the right hon. Gentleman read question 42 as to the burden on local authorities?

TROLLEY OMNIBUSES, LEYTON AREA (FARES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the hardship imposed on users of trolley-omnibuses in the Leyton area through the alteration and increase in fares and the withdrawal of transfer tickets since the tramcars ceased to run; and whether he will take steps that will lead the London Passenger Transport Board to restore the previous fares and facilities?

Mr. Burgin: Jurisdiction over the fares charged by the Board resides in the Railway Rates Tribunal. I understand that, in pursuance of their policy of standardising fares, the Board have introduced certain slight modifications of the fares charged on their trolley-buses in the Leyton area, but I am not aware that hardship has been occasioned thereby, especially as, in the majority of cases, the alterations have resulted in reduced fares.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that literally thousands of travellers on the trolley buses now find that their travelling expenditure has been exactly doubled through the alteration? In view of that fact, cannot he make personal representation to the Transport Board with regard to the very great hardship which this extra expenditure imposes on those who are earning round about £2 5s. or £2 10s. a week?

Mr. Burgin: I shall be glad to consider any facts if the information in my possession does not already deal with them.

Mr. McEntee: Is the right hon. Gentle-roan aware that in Walthamstow and Leyton many of the fares have been more than doubled, and does he propose to allow the Transport Board to make Waltham-stow and Leyton pay for the better conditions that have been given elsewhere?

Mr. Burgin: In the Leyton area two ordinary fares have been increased, but the fares are still less than 1d. per mile.

ACCIDENT (PLATELAYERS, DONCASTER).

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement respecting an accident on 8th June to platelayers on the London and North


Eastern railway line at Joan Croft Junction, near Doncaster; and whether a lookout man was employed?

Mr. Burgin: I have at once ordered an inquiry to be held into the circumstances attending this accident. Until I receive the inspecting officer's report, I am unable to make any statement.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION, SOUTH LANCASHIRE.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is able to report the decision of the railway companies to electrify the railways of South Lancashire?

Mr. Burgin: I understand that neither of the two main line railway companies concerned has under consideration at the present time any further electrification schemes in South Lancashire.

MOTORING ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents involving motor vehicles have occurred during the last three years in the village of South Kilvington, near Thirsk?

Mr. Burgin: Fourteen accidents involving motor vehicles occurred in the years 1934–5–6. One person was slightly injured.

Mr. Turton: In view of the accidents which occur in this village, will the Minister urge the local authority concerned to impose a speed limit?

Mr. Burgin: That is another matter.

Mr. Riley: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a motor accident at Bawtry, near Doncaster, on 8th June, when a motor-lorry with a trailer attached loaded with steel bars overturned and two men had remarkable escapes from serious injury; is he aware that the driver of the lorry was severely cut on the face and his mate thrown through the windscreen, carrying the frame and glass with him; and will he consider taking action to make it illegal for large lorries to travel on the roads with trailers attached?

Mr. Burgin: My attention had not previously been drawn to this case, but I am making inquiries.

Mr. Riley: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give very careful attention to the issue raised in the question?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION (MATERIALS).

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any information regarding recent experiments in the use of cotton-cloth for road-making?

Mr. Burgin: I have nothing to add to the answer given by my predecessor on 24th February, but if the hon. Member has any information he would like to furnish I shall be glad to receive it.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that more recent experiments have proved highly successful, and that fillings of cotton cloth are found to be a good foundation for a road, and make repairs much cheaper and more easily carried out? Will he, therefore, go into the matter again?

Mr. Burgin: I have said that I shall be glad to have any information in the possession of the hon. Member.

Mr. Leach: Is the Minister going to reprint this document, because it appears to be going round to hon. Members like the Coronation Medal?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Transport what is the nature of the material to be used in the construction of the national roads?

Mr. Burgin: It is impracticable in answer to a Parliamentary question to indicate the many varieties of material to be used as the selection of suitable materials must largely be dependent on the position of sources of supply in relation to the roads.

HORSE-DRAWN TRAFFIC, CENTRAL LONDON.

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has come to any decision regarding the prohibition of all horse-drawn traffic from Central London?

Mr. Burgin: No, Sir; before arriving at any further decision I propose to await experience of the working of the regulations recently made with regard to certain streets.

Mr. Pilkington: Is the Minister aware that wherever there are horse-drawn vehicles in the streets of London there is almost always congestion?

Mr. Burgin: I think that is much too sweeping a statement.

RAILWAY BRIDGES, CARLISLE.

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that within the last three years three fatal accidents have occurred on a 10-mile length of railway in the neighbourhood of Carlisle owing to the narrowness of the bridges on this line; and whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to prevent further accidents from this cause?

Mr. Burgin: I am aware that three accidents have occurred on the Maryport and Carlisle section of the London Midland and Scottish Railway owing to passengers leaning out of windows. On this line and other old lines there are a number of bridges where the clearance is less than would now be required for new construction. I have no power to compel the company to reconstruct the bridges or to provide narrower rolling stock than is now in use. Warning notices are exhibited in carriages. I will keep the matter under observation.

Brigadier-General Spears: Has the Minister no power whatever to prevent these fatal accidents occurring owing to the narrowness of these bridges?

Mr. Burgin: I am keeping this matter under close examination.

SELBY BRIDGE AND BY-PASS.

Major Procter: asked the Minister of Transport whether the proposed expenditure of £700,000 on a scheme for by-passing Selby, on the Liverpool-Hull main road, includes the cost of providing a modern and toll-free bridge in the centre of the town itself for the convenience of visitors; and, if not, what will be the additional cost of dealing with this aspect of the cross-river traffic problem at that place?

Mr. Burgin: No, Sir, my present proposal is for a new toll-free bridge, some 500 yards from the existing bridge, and a five-mile by-pass eliminating two level crossings. I am advised that the total cost of improving the present line through the town and replacing the toll bridge by a new toll-free bridge would be of the order of £500,000, but would afford traffic facilities much inferior to those to be provided under my proposal. I have, however, ordered a local inquiry at which objectors will have every opportunity of making representations.

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a grant towards freeing the existing toll-bridge at Selby or assist in providing a new bridge in the same situation?

Mr. Burgin: No, Sir. I can hold out no hope of any such grant.

ARTERIAL ROADS (RIBBON DEVELOPMENT).

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the continuance of ribbon development on a number of arterial highways notwithstanding recent legislation; and whether he will consider the desirability of charging a proportionate part of the road cost against any buildings in future constructed on the frontage of a main highway?

Mr. Burgin: Since the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, came into operation, highway authorities generally have adopted the policy of permitting roadside development along important highways only on condition that a subsidiary road is constructed between the buildings and the highway. I have no power which would enable me to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Sir W. Davison: Is not this matter very urgent, and does not the Minister think power should be taken to deal with it in view of the fact that some of these new by-pass roads are already being themselves by-passed?

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not the case that under the Road Fund, 1909, power was given to local authorities to take land alongside a new road and get the benefit of the increment value created by a new roadway?

ELECTRIC RAIL ACCIDENTS.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that two fatal accidents have occurred in the last ten days from contact with the live rail on the Southern Railway, one near Brighton and one near Mitcham; and what steps he is taking to see that the Southern Railway are providing proper fences or protection against this new danger?

Mr. Burgin: I am in communication with the railway company regarding the circumstances attending these accidents and am awaiting the result of my inquiries.

Brigadier-General Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since I put down the question there have been two more fatal accidents, and in view of the promise given by his predecessor to look into these matters, will the right hon. Gentleman see that proper fences are put up?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making the death rail illegal and insisting on the use of overhead wires.

TRAFFIC SIGNS.

Mr. Mitchell: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the present "Halt" signs are difficult to see; and whether he will consider the substitution of a form of sign more readily picked out?

Mr. Burgin: I have not had it suggested by any of the representative organisations that the form of the "Halts" sign is unsatisfactory, and I am satisfied that, if it is properly sired, drivers should have no difficulty in seeing it. If my hon. Friend will draw my attention to any case where difficulty arises, I will have inquiries made.

TRAVELLING FACILITIES (LONDON CHILDREN).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Transport what reply has recently been made by the London Passenger Transport Board to the appeal made for cheaper fares for children placed in work in London and the neighbourhood?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have been asked to reply. I understand that the question of cheaper travelling facilities for young persons in employment in London has again been reviewed by the railway companies and the London Passenger Transport Board, but they are unable to agree to any extension of the existing facilities.

Mr. Kelly: In view of the hardships caused by the fact that these children have to arrive in London sometimes an hour or an hour and a half before they commence work, will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to secure these cheaper fares?

Mr. Brown: The answer I have given was made as a result of a fresh review of the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill to implement the memorandum on electricity distribution?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. The Government have already announced their intention to introduce legislation dealing with the reorganisation of distribution of electricity supply.

Mr. Ridley: Are we to understand the reply to mean that it is still the intention of the Government to embody the terms of the memorandum in a Parliamentary Bill?

Mr. Burgin: It is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to deal with the reorganisation of distribution of electricity supply. The memorandum to which the hon. Member refers was a communication made to facilitate the negotiations.

Captain Sir William Brass: Are we to understand that the reports in the newspapers that this has been dropped are entirely untrue?

Mr. Burgin: The reports in the newspapers, the origin of which is unknown to me, are entirely without foundation, and, as far as I know, the exact contrary of what the Minister proposes.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Minister say when this legislation is likely to be introduced?

Mr. Burgin: That is a question which should be addressed to the Prime Minister. It is hoped that there will be no undue delay.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport what has been the general character of the replies so far received from the various organisations to which "Electricity Distribution—Outline of Proposals," has been issued?

Mr. Burgin: The object of circulating proposals was to facilitate discussion with representative associations. I do not think it would be helpful to disclose the nature or character of individual replies which have been sent to me in response to this invitation.

Mr. H. Morrison: From the replies and expressions received already, is it not clear that the Government's proposals are having a somewhat unpopular reception?

Mr. Burgin: No, Sir. I think it is much too early to make any such statement.

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Minister of Transport the number of units sold by the public electricity supply undertakings in the years 1930 and 1933, and for the last year for which corresponding figures are available; and how these are divided between municipalities and companies, respectively?

Mr. Burgin: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


—
Units Sold (millions).



1930.
1933.
1936.


Public Authorities.
4,475·7
7,030·1
10,673·9


Companies
3,454·1
4,076·3
6,129·6

Sir A. Gridley: asked the Minister of Transport the average price per electricity unit sold for power or industrial purposes, as distinct from domestic purposes, by municipalities and companies, respectively, for the last completed account year; and the number of such units sold by municipalities and companies, respectively, for the same year?

Mr. Burgin: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


—
1935–36. Units sold for power or industrial purposes.
1935–36. Average Revenue per Unit.




(millions).
d.


Public Authorities
…
4,900·5
0·669


Companies
…
3,349·5
0·645

Sir A. Gridley: asked the Minister of Transport the number of electricity distributing undertakings operated by municipalities and companies, respectively, which have not yet changed over their non-standard systems to the standard alternating current system; and the number of direct current units sold by these undertakings, respectively, for the last completed account year?

Mr. Burgin: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

In 1935–36 there were 217 public authority undertakings and 108 company undertakings which were giving supplies on the direct current system; and of these, 193 public authority undertakings and 76 company undertakings were also giving supplies on the alternating current system, in the great majority of cases at the standard frequency of 50 cycles per second. Figures for the number of direct current units sold are not readily available, but there were about 1.2 million direct current consumers out of a total of 7·7 million consumers.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS).

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. CHURCHILL:

45. To ask the Prime Minister, whether he is in a position to define more exactly for the guidance of the House the limits within which he is prepared to answer questions relating to events in India; for instance, will information be given to Parliament in respect of any matter concerning which the Governors or the Governor-General are responsible to Parliament, either acting in respect of their statutory duty or in their individual judgment within the ambit of the India Constitution Act; whether in these respects information will be given as asked about facts and events in India in order that the House may judge the situation, and whether the special responsibilities of Governors are rightly exercised or not exercised; whether, for instance, any summoning of Indian provincial Legislatures or any refusal to summon them is justified; secondly, whether information will be given on facts and events which lead or are likely to lead to the use of British or Indian troops, or concerning the protection of minorities. or to loss of life either to the troops or the civil population; further, whether provincial autonomy is deemed to be in operation for the restriction of Parliamentary Questions in provinces where no Ministry has been formed which possesses the confidence of the Legislature; and whether provincial autonomy will still be deemed


to be in operation notwithstanding executive power being resumed in any province by the Governor in accordance with the statute; lastly, in view of the ultimate responsibility of' Parliament, as provided for in Section 93 of the Government of India Act, for the issue of any proclamation by a Governor of a province assuming to himself emergency powers in the case of a failure of the constitutional machinery of a province, and of the further responsibility of Parliament, as provided for by the said Section of the Act, for the continuance of such emergency powers, whether he can assure the House that it shall be able to obtain regularly whatever information it may require for the discharge of its duty?

Mr. Thurtle: May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the length of this question, and ask you whether there is any limit to the length of a question which may be put down for Oral Answer?

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the importance of this question, and also in view of the fact that I, too, addressed a question on this matter, but with much greater brevity, but which still was refused at the Table, may I ask whether it is not possible for me to accept this question in place of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)?

Mr. Speaker: With regard to the length of the question, I told the right hon. Gentleman that it was far too long. It is a very important question as under the changed constitution for India we should know exactly what are the responsibilities of Ministers in this House before questions are put down. I think when the answer is given the hon. Member will see that it almost justifies the length of the question.

Mr. McEntee: Should not this be called an essay, not a question?

Mr. Speaker: I have said that it is too long, and that is enough.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that if the question had been brief, with one sentence such as I put down, it would have been more acceptable?

Mr. Speaker: It would have been to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC WORKS SCHEMES.

Mr. Harvey: asked the Prime Minister whether concerted plans are being prepared by the various Government Departments concerned, both for schemes of public works to be undertaken by the Government and for proposals to be commended to local authorities, so that there may be no delay in their application when a period of trade depression arrives?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The question whether by Government action it is possible to mitigate the effects of a trade depression following a period of exceptional trade activity has been under consideration for some time, but the stage at which plans could be concerted as suggested in the question has not yet been reached.

Mr. Harvey: Cannot the Government make a statement at a suitable time as to their action?

The Prime Minister: I will consider the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HISTORIC REMAINS, BURSLEDON.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he intends taking action to preserve the historic remains at Bursledon, Hants, of the King Henry V battleship, the "Grace Dieu"?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): I regret that there are no powers vested in my Department under which any action in respect of the remains referred to can be taken.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not possible to schedule this as an ancient monument to emulate the example of the Scandinavian countries, and to take such maritime relics and preserve them for educational purposes?

Sir P. Sassoon: It does not come within my powers to do so, but I will draw the attention of the Maritime Museum to the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (WORKPEOPLE).

Mr. Kelly: asked the First Commissioner of Works the number of workpeople employed by his Department on the work of the Houses of Parliament in March, 1935, 1936, and 1937, respectively?

Sir P. Sassoon: The numbers of work-people in the employment of my Department in the Houses of Parliament at the end of March, 1935, 1936, and 1937 respectively were 237, 280 and 222.

Mr. Kelly: What is the reason for the number being so much smaller this year than it was last year? Is it because the work is being completed, or it is because men are being got rid of and will be replaced by others?

Sir P. Sassoon: The work on several portions has been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (AYRSHIRE CONSTABULARY).

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of police constables in the Ayrshire Constabulary who have applied to be transferred to other forces from January, 1935, up to 9th June, 1937; the number of constables granted transfers and refused, respectively; and the reasons for these applications being made?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The answer to the first part of the question is four, and to the second part of the question three and one respectively. The reason given in two cases was desire to serve in a city police force, and in the other two cases desire to have a better chance of advancement.

Mr. McGovern: Has the hon. Gentleman any opportunities of checking the information given about this police force, because it has been stated to me on reliable authority that recent information given to him has been incorrect?

Mr. Wedderburn: I do not see the connection between that and the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. McGovern: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that information which I have received from an official source does not correspond to the answer he has given me?

Mr. Wedderburn: I think the hon. Gentleman had a question on the Paper yesterday, which was answered, referring to this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The Prime Minister: We hope to make good progress to-day with the Factories Bill. It is proposed to take Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order relating to iron and steel goods, and the Clearing Office (Rumania) Amendment Order, both of which are exempted business. We also desire to obtain the Committee stage of the Money Resolution relating to the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Attlee: I take it there is no intention of asking the House to sit very late?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 133.

Division No. 220.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Blair, Sir R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Blaker, Sir R.
Channon, H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Bossom, A. C.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Boulton, W. W.
Chorlton, A. E. L.


Apsley, Lord
Boyce, H. Leslie
Christie, J. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bracken, B.
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Assheton, R.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Atholl, Duchess of
Brass, Sir W.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cox, H. B. T.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Cranborne, Viscount


Baxter, A. Beverley
Cartland, J. R. H.
Craven-Ellis, W.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Critchley, A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page


Beit, Sir A. L.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Cross, R. H.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Cruddas, Col. B.


Bernays, R. H.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenharn)
Culverwell, C. T.




Davison, Sir W. H,
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Denville, Alfred
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rowlands, G.


Doland, G. F.
Leckie, J. A.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Donner, P. W.
Lees-Jones, J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Drewe, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Salmon, Sir I.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Levy, T.
Salt, E. W.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lindsay, K. M.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Duggan, H. J.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Sandys, E. D.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lloyd, G. W.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Loftus, P. C.
Selley, H. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Emery, J. F.
Lyons, A. M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Emmott, C. E. G. C
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Everard, W. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Fildes, Sir H.
McKie, J. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Furness, S. N.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spens, W. P.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W m'ld)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Moreing, A. C.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h)


Guy, J. C. M.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tasker, Sir R. J.


Hannah, I. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Tate, Mavis C.


Hartington, Marquess of
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Touche, G. C.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Turton, R. H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Orr-Ewing, I. L
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hepworth, J.
Patrick, C. M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Peaks, O.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Higgs, W. F.
Peat, C. U.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wells, S. R.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Holdsworth, H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Holmes, J. S.
Pilkington, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Porritt, R. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Procter, Major H. A.
Wise, A. R.


Hulbert, N. J.
Purbrick, R.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hunter, T.
Rankin, Sir R.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rawson, Sir Cooper



Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rayner, Major R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Dobbie, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Adamson, W. M.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Ammon, C. G.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kelly, W. T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Banfield, J. W.
Gallacher, W.
Kirby, B. V.


Barnes, A. J.
Gardner, B. W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Barr, J.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Lathan, G.


Batey, J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leach, W.


Bellenger, F. J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lee, F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Gibbins, J.
Leonard, W.


Bromfield, W.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lunn, W.


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Burke, W. A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
McEntee, V. La T.


Cape, T.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McGhee, H. G.


Cassells, T.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McGovern, J.


Chater, D.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
MacLaren, A.


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Cocks, F. S.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Mander, G. le M.


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Marshall, F.


Daggar, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Maxton, J.


Dalton, H.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Messer, F.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hollins, A.
Milner, Major J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hopkin, D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jagger, J.
Muff, G.


Day, H.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.







Naylor, T. E.
Sexton, T. M.
Tinker, J. J.


Oliver, G. H.
Shinwell, E.
Viant, S. P.


Owen, Major G.
Short, A.
Walker, J.


Paling, W.
Silverman, S. S.
Watkins, F. C.


Parker, J.
Simpson, F. B.
Watson, W. McL.


Parkinson, J. A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Welsh, J. C.


Pritt, D. N.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Westwood, J.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
White, H. Graham


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Ridley, G.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Riley, B.
Stephen, C.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Ritson, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Roberta, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Rowson, G.
Thorne, W.



Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Thurtle, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Local Government (Members' Expenses) (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — FACTORIES BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Overcrowding.)

3.54 p.m

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move in page 3, line 35, at the end, to insert:
and, where a room contains a gallery, the gallery shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if it were partitioned off from the remainder of the room and formed a separate room.
When an Amendment similar to this was moved in Committee, objection was taken to it on the ground that the wording was not sufficiently clear. I think the House will agree that the present Amendment is not open to any objection on that ground. It seems right that where sufficient cubic space is available, a gallery should be allowed to count as separate accommodation. Under the wording of this Amendment neither the gallery nor the workroom itself can be overcrowded. It also shuts out any possibility of the construction of dummy galleries in order to get more people into a room, and so overcrowd that room. It is a commonsense Amendment, intended to enable a gallery in a large workshop to be used in the proper way. I understand that it has been the practice of the Home Office in the past to treat galleries in the way here proposed, and I trust that the House will find my proposal acceptable.

Mr. Hepworth: I beg to second the Amendment.

3.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): This is a straightforward Amendment, and those Members who were present in the Standing Committee will remember that we discussed the point there. It was explained by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary that, in dealing with the problem of galleries as part of the technical question of calculating cubic space in workrooms, the proposal of the Amendment was already the administrative practice of the Home Office. It is not of great importance to us whether we continue it as an administrative practice, or insert a provision to this effect

in the Bill, and we are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Kelly: I suggest that this matter should have further consideration. One can visualise a factory with a gallery running right round which might be used for the storage of materials to such an extent that it ought not to be treated in the way proposed by the Amendment in relation to the calculation of cubic space. This Amendment might prove a dangerous addition to the proposals already in the Measure. I hope the Under-Secretary will give further consideration to the subject before agreeing to accept a proposal which might, possibly, have the effect of making the Bill worse than it is.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member is on a false point. The question of the storage of material would arise, whether it was a gallery or anything else which was in question. It has to be taken into account in any case. There is no complication arising out of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, to leave out from the beginning to "there," in line 37, and to insert:
Unless the inspector for the district otherwise allows.
The circumstances in which this Amendment is considered desirable can, I think, be simply and briefly stated. Clause 2 deals with overcrowding. It lays down specifically the number of cubic feet per person which must be observed in order to avoid overcrowding. It is, therefore, a perfectly easy thing for the employer himself to determine how many people, within the provisions of the Act, may be employed within the factory or in the room within the factory. The Amendment would have the effect of requiring the employer, having made that simple calculation, to post in the factory and the workrooms a notice which would state for the benefit of the employés the number of employés who might be engaged there at one time. As the Clause stands that notice may not be posted unless the inspector requires that it shall be posted.
Two factors should be taken into consideration, if the Amendment is not incorporated. One is the tremendous number of workrooms everyone of which would have to be examined by the inspector before the inspector could determine


whether or not a notice shall be posted. How long that process will take it is impossible to say, but it will take a very long time indeed. That means that between the operating date of the Act and the actual date of the inspection by the inspector, there might be wholesale breaches of these overcrowding provisions. The Amendment would reverse the process of the Clause. It is quite proper to require an employer to post a notice as to how many people can be employed in a room unless for some exceptional reason the inspector allows him not to post it.

Mr. Jagger: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would remind the Home Secretary that we have followed the principle of letting the workpeople know unmistakably what their position is under the Trade Boards Act and other Acts.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: Originally in the Bill, having in mind the largely increasing number of modern workshops where the standard was so much greater than the legal requirements, we had come to the conclusion that it might be as well to provide for the notice being posted where the inspector thought it necessary, but having considered the points that the hon. Member has made to-day, and having regard to the great importance of work-people knowing what protection is available to them under the Acts, we have decided to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Enforcement by district councils of certain provisions of Part I.)

4.5 p.m.

Major Milner: I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, at the end, to insert "or sanitary inspector."
This Clause provides that in any of the preceding provisions of the Bill there shall be substituted for reference to a factory inspector a reference to the medical officer of health, and the purpose of the Amendment is to add the words, "or sanitary inspector." In my submission there are quite incontrovertible arguments why this should be done, and I am at a loss to understand how it is that the words of the Amendment are not in the Bill. In the first place the provisions contained in the preceding Clauses, to which reference is made in

this Clause, relate to cleanliness (including the removal of offensive accumulations), overcrowding, temperature, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences. In my submission these things are peculiarly the function of the sanitary inspector to deal with. Not only that, but assuming that this Clause goes through as it stands, the House would, in effect, be taking away from sanitary inspectors the power which they at present have, because under the Factory and Workshops Act of 1901 action by a district council is dependent upon a certificate of the medical officer of health or of the sanitary inspector; and if the Clause goes through as it stands, the result would be that the sanitary inspector would be deprived of power which for 36 years he has exercised. That is a very serious matter. The sanitary Inspector is the appropriate officer. He carries out inspections of factories and workshops, and unless the name of his office is put in here he is deprived of a power that he already has.
There are other reasons why I urge this Amendment upon the House. For five or six years I have served with other Members of the House on a number of Consolidation Committees, in particular on a Local Council and Public Health Consolidation Committee, and in quite a number of instances in the Public Health Bill of last year, in order to secure uniformity, the words "or sanitary inspector," or similar words were invariably added by the Committee and were approved by the House. The Factory Acts are analogous, in this respect at any rate, to the Public Health Acts, and it seems to me to be necessary, in the interest of uniformity, to add these words. Furthermore, if the Home Secretary will look at the following Clause, Sub-section (2), he will find these words:
Where an inspector finds any such act or default as aforesaid, he may take with him into the factory a medical officer of health, sanitary inspector or other officer of the district council.
There the sanitary inspector is mentioned. We all know that in practice this sort of work is invariably done by the sanitary inspector. It may be that formal reports are signed by the medical officer, but the actual work is done by the sanitary inspector, who has the right of entry, the right to prosecute claims and to take action on behalf of the council. Without


this Amendment, if I am a factory owner it will be open to me, when the sanitary inspector comes along, even under the direction of a medical officer of health, to say to him, under this Clause as it stands, "Get out; the only person who is entitled to exercise the powers in the preceding Clauses of this Bill is the medical officer. There is no authority for the sanitary inspector to come into my factory"; and it will be open to the sanitary inspector to say to the medical officer of health, That is not one of my functions, you are given the specific function of dealing with cleanliness, ventilation and so on." Confusion will arise; there will be difficulty in a number of respects, and the status of the sanitary inspector, which for 36 years has given him separate powers under the Factory Acts, will be reduced. That is not a desirable thing. Sanitary inspectors have technical examinations to pass and it is right and proper that their status should be preserved.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is very undesirable indeed to restrict the right of entry and of inspection. The more the right of entry or inspection is restricted, the less is it likely that infringement will be discovered. Not only is this a weakening of the provision of the 1901 Act and out of harmony with the provisions of Clause 9 of this Bill, but it is similarly out of harmony with Clause 126, Sub-section (5), which states:
For the purpose of their duties under this Act a county council and a district council and their officers shall, without prejudice.…
If the word "officers" in that Clause means what it can only be construed to mean, that is to include the sanitary inspector, it is inconsistent not specially to define him in Clause 8.

4.12 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I think a certain amount of misconception underlies some of the arguments used in support of the Amendment. I would like the House to know that there is no question in this Clause of determining which officer of the district council or local authority is to perform certain duties relating to inspection. It is not that at all. The purpose of the Clause, or of the Sub-section to which this Amendment is

proposed, is to transfer to a named officer of the local authorities certain powers which, under the amending scheme of factory legislation, are specifically conferred on the inspector. The powers in question, if one looks back from Clause 8 to previous Clauses, are powers of a special character. They are four in number—the power to approve certain methods of cleaning under Clause 1 (c), the power to require whitewashing in certain small factories in the proviso of Clause 1, the power to require mechanical ventilation under Clause 2, and the power to require the posting of notices in a workroom, under Clause 2. Those are the powers with which this particular Amendment is alone concerned, and the effect, as the Bill as drawn, is to say that these particular administrative actions which, in the case of an ordinary factory depend upon the discretion of a factory inspector, shall be exercised in the case of the factory which is under the control of the district council by the medical officer of health. Therefore, it is not a question of assigning to one officer or another the general duty of inspecting sanitary conveniences and that sort of thing, but of transferring from the factory inspector to the medical officer of health four specific administrative powers.

Major Milner: Why not to the sanitary inspector?

The Lord Advocate: I will explain that in a moment. The hon. and gallant Member said that unless you inserted "or sanitary inspector," as his Amendment proposes, you would be depriving him of powers which he has enjoyed ever since the Act of 1901. Once again there is a slight misconception there, because the effect of this Amendment would be greatly to extend the powers of sanitary inspectors beyond those which they now enjoy. All that they can do under the Act of 1901 is to make a report to the district council, and it is the council which takes the decision. Under this Bill, as framed, these specific powers which I have enumerated are given to the medical officer of health, and, of course, it would be quite impossible to suggest that he should act on a report of a sanitary inspector. It would be quite out of harmony with the system of local government.
The next point is this—and I think this was explained in Committee—that under


the administrative regulations which control the relations of the medical officer of health to the sanitary inspector—it is an order called the Sanitary Officers Order of 1926—the sanitary inspector works in matters of this kind under the supervision and direction of the medical officer of health. He is definitely a subordinate person in the hierarchy of officials, and I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate very fully how dangerous a thing it would be, and how liable to introduce confusion of administration, if you were to confer concurrent administrative powers alternatively upon a principal and a subordinate official. Imagine the situation if some executive power was directed to be exercised by the colonel or alternatively by the major of a battalion.
As regards the right of entry, I should like to assure the House that no difficulty arises there for the very reason which was mentioned by the Seconder of the Amendment, because Clause 126, Subsection (5) specifically authorises an official of a district council, among others, to exercise these powers; so that, taking the whole matter together, I would suggest to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment that in the light of the explanations which I have given there would be a very real danger of introducing confusion into the administration if they pressed the Amendment, which would give alternative powers of an administrative character to a subordinate and a superior official, particularly as there is no question of curtailing the existing powers of the sanitary inspector, but simply of preserving the situation substantially as it is. I am afraid, therefore, it will be necessary to resist the Amendment, unless the hon. and gallant Member sees fit not to press it.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. J. Jones: It is most extraordinary to listen to some of the lectures that we receive from the Front Bench opposite, particularly when we are dealing with local affairs and the administration of the laws of the country. We have just listened to a lecture which in itself has no relationship to the facts. Everybody who knows the work of a sanitary inspector knows that he has the right of entry, but after he has entered a factory what can he do? Report to the doctor,

the medical officer of health, in his own particular locality. Everybody who is a member of a local authority knows that the medical officer himself cannot control the administration in detail, but can only give general instructions, and he has no more control than my cat. What we should do is to give authority to the people who have to do the work. What is the good of a sanitary inspector going to a factory down in my constituency? He makes a report to the medical officer of health, who has not got time to attend to it. We have had one laid up for eight months, ill. He has an assistant, who has not the authority to do the things he might like to do, and in consequence nothing is being done, and your Factory Acts become inoperative. The big firms along the docks area do not take any notice of your sanitary inspector, because he has no power to act. Why should he not have power to act as well as to report? He is the man who has to do the job and find out what is wrong, but you say to him, "You cannot do anything. There is a gentleman at the top who has to tell you what you have to do." That is not good enough.
In the constituency that I represent we have over 50,000 people employed in factories. How can one man, a medical officer, control all those factories and know what is going on in all of them? The men who are acting as sanitary inspectors know their job, and they inform me that they cannot do it because they have no power. This Bill will prevent them from having even the power that they used to have, and they will simply be reporters still. I would like some of my colleagues in this House to come down with me to the Silvertown division and go through some of the factories there and see some of the sanitary arrangements, reported for years as being unsatisfactory, and yet nothing has been done. So far as we are concerned, you are asking us simply to report and report and report, and somebody who should be able to carry out the job is not able to do the necessary alterations. Then you say to us that the sanitary inspector does not come in. The sanitary inspector ought to be one of the first men on the job, and if he is a conscientious man, as I believe most of them are, he will see that things are done. Therefore, I support the Amendment, in the hope that the Minister will accept it.

Sir Robert Tasker: Is not the position this: that the medical officers may deputise?

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: At the present moment the sanitary inspector can only make a report, and that is what the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) objects to. I understand that under this Bill the medical officer of health can give his own orders and does not need to report to any committee. That is a departure, as I understand it, from the present position. I have no doubt that the sanitary inspector from time to time will call the medical officer's attention to the things that he comes across in going through the different factories, and it is much better that the medical officer should be able to act than that the matter should be left for consideration by the local authority. We all know how matters get delayed when they are under consideration by local committees. The Amendment remitting the matter back to the sanitary inspector would weaken the powers in the Bill, and for that reason I support the Bill as it stands.

4.25 p.m.

Major Milner: By leave of the House, may I ask two questions? Am I not correct in saying that the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, does couple the medical officer of health and the sanitary inspector in specific terms, and is it not true that action can at present be taken by the council on the certificate of either of those two officers? That being so, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that the powers of the sanitary inspector are in no sense being weakened or his status reduced by this Bill?

4.26 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: In reply, I would say that it is correct that under the Factory and Workshops Act, 19or, which is the present law, the council acts for certain purposes such as lime washing, fencing, and the rest of it, on the report of the medical officer of health or the inspector of nuisances, as he is called there, and these two officials are coupled together there, but, please observe, merely for the purpose of reporting to the council, whereas, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) pointed out under this Bill the medical

officer of health will for certain purposes have an independent administrative power, apart altogether from the council, and I think he is right in saying that the Bill in that respect is a departure from the present position.

Major Milner: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me the assurance for which I asked?

The Lord Advocate: That the powers of the sanitary inspector are not being curtailed?

Major Milner: Yes.

The Lord Advocate: I do not think they are, except in respect that it will no longer be, in terms of the 1901 Act, for the medical officer of health or the inspector of nuisances to make these reports to the council. The sanitary inspector, of course, will still continue to discharge many duties for his council under such subjects as Clause 7 (Sanitary conveniences), Clause 4 (Ventilation), and the rest of it. He will do that as a servant of the council; he will not do it under specific statutory directions such as are contained in the Act of 1901. Except in that respect there will be no curtailment of powers, but if the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment were accepted, there would be a very substantial extension of the sanitary inspector's powers over and above what he has at present.

Mr. Buchanan: In the event of a medical officer of health not being able for any reason to do his duty, has he the power automatically to ask his deputy to assume those powers?

The Lord Advocate: That is the general law. Under the English Local Government Act and the Scottish Public Health Act, a deputy has power to act when the medical officer of health cannot himself perform his duties.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 12.—(Prime movers.)

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, to leave out "in such a position or."
This Clause provides that all prime movers shall be securely fenced unless they are in such a position or construction as to be as safe for every person


employed or working on the premises as they would be if securely fenced. The next Clause makes similar provisions with regard to transmission machinery, and the succeeding Clause makes the same provisions with regard to other forms of machinery which are not included in Clauses 12 and 13. The question whether it is possible to hold machinery to be safe and not requiring to be protected simply because it is in a certain position, is one which has given, and must continue to give, thought to those who have responsibility in these matters. I hope that the time will come when exemptions from the necessity of fencing machinery will not be allowed. I am not unaware of the fact that if the requirements to fence all machinery were made, it would call for a good deal of reconstruction and expenditure, but it is clear that machinery which is held to be safe can only be held to be safe as long as the workpeople employed about it can be held to be in the same relative position to the machinery. That is a condition which it is clearly impossible to carry out.
My personal experience in regard to this matter has been augmented lately by a terrible accident which was brought to my attention in which a workman approaching a piece of shafting, which for over 20 years had been held to be safe and had not been the subject of any accident, was, owing to the starting of the machine, caught in the machinery and was killed. Following the accident, the inspector properly in the exercise of his power brought an action against the occupier of the factory. There will be other cases as long as permission is allowed to leave machinery unfenced, and that will be unsatisfactory both to the workers and to the employers, who will find themselves faced with serious liability in regard to machinery which they had every reason to suppose was safe. It is a matter that ought to receive some consideration, and a Bill of this kind should not pass without recognition of the fact that here is a question that requires ventilation.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Was the shafting in the accident to which the hon. Gentleman referred overhead or on the ground level?

Mr. White: It was overhead shafting.

Mr. Owen Evans: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter that ought to be considered, but I hope that I shall be able to convince him that this Amendment is not necessary. This has been a provision of the law for a long time. It is the case that machinery can fulfil the provisions of the law if it is fenced, or in such a position, or of such a construction as to be as safe to people employed or working on the premises as they would be if it were securely fenced. It is a very severe provision. Machinery has to be, by law, as safe as if it were fenced. The hon. Gentleman's case really depends on showing to be true the proposition that it is impossible to make a thing as safe by position as it would be if it were securely fenced. I hope to show him that that is not correct. It is wrong to suppose that fencing always gives 100 per cent. protection. Accidents occur even when machinery is fenced. On the other hand, there are some parts of machinery which are completely inaccessible to workpeople and are safe by their position. Would it be right to require that those parts of machinery in inaccessible positions, which are from a common-sense point of view really safe, should be required to be fenced? Take, for example, the gearing that may be working a hoist. In some cases it may be 40 or 50 feet above the top of the well of the hoist, and it would be completely inaccessible. Yet under this Amendment it would be necessary to fence it.
There are a large number of machines all over the country which really are safe by position from a common sense point of view, and the Amendment would require all those machines to be fenced. While the House will take the view that all proper precautions should be taken, even involving expenditure by the occupier which is really required for safety, it is wrong to load the Statute with provisions which would be very expensive, and which would not appreciably lead to safety. The courts have taken a very strict view of this provision. In fact, I understand they have been taking a stricter view in recent years, and have been interpreting this provision in a very severe way. Partly as a result of that, and partly as a result of careful administration by the inspectors, the accidents from overhead shafting have fallen by half in the last ten years.

Miss Wilkinson: If a quickly revolving wheel that was quite inaccessible to the workers burst, would not fencing prevent the broken fragments from flying about?

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: Would not fencing cause additional metal to fall on the workers in such a case? If, as the Clause stands, the position is to be such that a piece of machinery is as safe as if it were fenced, then it would be only duplicating fencing to put a fence round it. As the Under-Secretary said, the courts are interpreting this very strictly, and if a machine is in such a position that it is as safe as if it were fenced, and an accident happened, it is almost conclusive proof that a blunder has been made. An employer will take care, not only to protect his own pocket, but from the higher motive of protecting his workpeople, to put additional fencing to prevent any chance of accident if there is any doubt about the safety. It is, however, no use adding a fence to a fence that already exists because of the construction of the machine. Industry is difficult enough to carry on as it is, and it is no use carrying out a counsel of perfection which will serve no useful purpose.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: It might be useful to refer to the discussion which took place on a similar point in Standing Committee. The principle of the Clause, which is accepted everywhere, is that dangerous machinery ought to be fenced, and that there ought to be no exception unless the exceptions are of such a nature as to be self-evident. In Standing Committee an Amendment was moved to leave out the words "in such a position" and also the words "of such construction," and the debate followed the line that there was no such thing as safety by position or safety by construction. Various arguments were put forward, and it was ultimately accepted by everybody that there was a distinction to be drawn between machines which were alleged to be safe by their construction and machines of which it was alleged that although by their construction they were not safe, they were obviously safe by reason of their position.
It was accepted by the Home Secretary in Committee that these two positions were not the same thing, and that the case for exempting machinery which was

safe by its construction was one thing, but that the case for exempting machinery which was safe by position was another. To-day no one has said that in the case of machinery which by its construction is not capable of being dangerous ought to be fenced. That exception from the general principle we may take now to be common ground. When, however, it comes to the question of safety by position, I say that in the conditions of modern factories there is not any such thing. All sorts of things may happen. I would ask the hon. and learned Member for Argyleshire (Mr. Macquisten) whether any harm is done by taking extra precautions, and is it going to impose such an intolerable burden upon industry?

Mr. Macquisten: It is not an extra precaution; it is a needless precaution.

Mr. Silverman: That is just what is in issue. In the case of machinery that is safe by construction we are agreed, but we are saying that where machinery is dangerous in itself, then the mere place in which it is in the factory cannot render it impossible to be dangerous to everybody.
The possibility that machinery which is dangerous in itself will some day involve an unforeseen accident always remains if you depend merely on the position in which the machinery is, and even if you save only one accident a year is not that worth doing? Is the burden which would be placed on industry so intolerable that industry ought not to be asked to bear it? I say that it is not. No one who knows the facts about accidents in factories would venture to say that it was an intolerable burden to place upon employers to ask them to fence all machinery that is dangerous or that is capable of being dangerous, except such machinery as, by its very construction, is deemed not to be dangerous at all.

Wing-Commander Wright: Will the hon. Member tell me what machinery is by its construction not dangerous?

Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Member asks me that question I should say there was no such thing. I should prefer—and I think this was the position taken by my colleagues in the Standing Committee—that the rule that all machinery dangerous in itself should be fenced should have no exceptions, but if we cannot have that and if we are bound


to except those machines which are deemed to be safe by their construction, that need not lead us to the far more dangerous position of exempting those machines which are dangerous but which are alleged to have lost their danger by reason of the position in which they are in the factory. I hope the Home Office will reconsider this question. What we ask is not a big thing and it would improve the Bill, and would be worth while if it prevented only one accident a year.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: There are many machines to-day which, by virtue of their construction, are not dangerous. That is the tendency of modern design, and I think it is totally unnecessary to provide protection in those instances. Such precautions as can be taken are quite unnecessary when machines are put in buildings designed entirely for those machines. Fencing may become dangerous, inasmuch as lubrication has to be undertaken from time to time. The fences are in the way and the lubricators do not always take the trouble to remove them, and they are dangerous on those occasions. Then there is the question of testing electrical machinery, which concerns this Clause very closely. Electric generators are used to a great extent, and if those generators had to be fenced it would be very detrimental to the testers to have to move the fences every time they had to put a new machine down for testing purposes. I consider that the Clause as it is is very strong and that the addition of this Amendment is very undesirable.

Mr. White: The statement made in answer to the case which I endeavoured to place before the House illustrates the difficulty which we have experienced from time to time in connection with this Bill in making general provisions for safety apply in every particular instance. I think that in this instance we had better rely upon the assurance which the hon. Gentleman has given that the matter will receive administrative consideration, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 14.—(Other machinery.)

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 9, line 34, to leave out "makes it impos-

sible to expose," and to insert "prevents the exposure of."
This is an Amendment of some importance to what we regard as an important Sub-section of an important Clause. The Sub-section gives the Home Secretary power to issue regulations making compulsory the use of certain safety devices on a certain class of machine when the safety devices fulfil certain conditions. What it really means is that when there is a really good safety device it is to be used. On Second Reading I gave the House the instance of the hydro-extractor and the terrible accidents there have been with some of those machines. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) will be interested in the cotton carding machines, which have terrible teeth exposed on the revolving drums when they are opened for the purpose of cleaning. There is a device, as the hon. Member knows, because I saw one first in his constituency, which prevents the opening of the machine until the revolving drum with the teeth on it has come to rest. That is the class of case in which my right hon. Friend has the power to make the use of the safety device compulsory. On considering the matter we came to the conclusion that the words "makes it impossible to expose" were rather extreme in view of the Home Secretary having to satisfy himself on the point, and we thought it would be desirable to be able to spread our net a little wider by inserting a less extreme provision such as "prevents the exposure of." The purpose of the Amendment is merely to give the Home Secretary powers over a slightly wider category of machines.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, in page To, line 6, to leave out from the beginning, to "shall," in line 7, and to insert:
Any part of a stock-bar which projects beyond the head-stock of a lathe.
This Amendment is very closely related to a new Clause which was added in Committee, and it arises out of the discussions which followed when the Government brought forward a proposal to fence not merely the machine but, in certain cases, the material in the machine. I will not go over all the arguments again. Our proposal was subjected to perfectly reason, able criticism in Standing Committee, and we promised to readjust it. We have


done so, and have produced a new and rather more elaborate scheme in which we have dealt specifically with the question of stock bars, the bad accidents in connection with which first drew attention to this matter. In face of the rather vague proviso which, I think rightly, excited criticism as likely to lead to disputes in the application of the law, we have reverted to the device with which the Standing Committee became very familiar, of leaving it to the Home Secretary to make regulations to deal with particular circumstances.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I hope that when the Home Office are issuing regulations they will bear in mind rolling mills. I have seen one or two terrible accidents there. I am sure that this Amendment will bring about a great improvement.

Mr. Lloyd: We will certainly consider that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, leave out lines 11 to 13, and insert:
The Secretary of State may, as respects any machine or any process in which a machine is used, make regulations requiring the fencing of materials or articles which are dangerous while in motion in the machine."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

CLAUSE 17.—(New machinery.)

4.55 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 11, line 27, after "hire," to insert:
or as agent of the seller or hirer causes or procures to be sold or let on hire.
The House will note that under Subsection (2) of this Clause it is made a penal offence for any person to sell or let on hire for use in a United Kingdom factory any machine which does not comply with certain requirements which are prescribed in the Clause. In Standing Committee it was pointed out, and rightly, I think, that we had not spread the net wide enough to catch the foreign manufacturer who sends an agent to sell a machine in this country which does not comply with our requirements, and we have adjusted this Amendment so as to ensure that the agent in this country who takes part in the selling or the letting on hire of such a machine shall be in the same position as the United Kingdom manufacturer. I think the general idea of the Amendment, which commended

itself to the Committee, will commend itself to the House.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: As one who raised this issue in Committee I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing himself to be converted to a little more sense in connection with this part of the Clause. If we push him a little further I think the Bill will become very much more as we want it to be. Perhaps I had better say in reference to this Amendment that we were moved to take action by the influx into this country of foreign capital and aliens who establish factories here. I feel sure that this new Amendment, which has been put forward on our suggestion, will help in dealing with those problems. I ought to say that I still think the words which were submitted by us in the first instance are very much more intelligent than these words.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I do not think we can part with this Clause before we have congratulated the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on turning Protectionist, and on the very strong Protectionist speech which he has just made.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Training and supervision of young persons working at dangerous machines.)

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Burke: I beg to move, in page 13, line 17, to leave out "to which this Section applies."
In moving this Amendment I hope that I may also be allowed to deal at the same time with the subsequent Amendment, to leave out Sub-section (2).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): Yes, certainly. The omission of the Subsection is consequential.

Mr. Burke: I hope the Minister will agree to this Amendment, which has been put down specifically in the interests of young persons. The Clause gives the Minister power to prescribe certain machines to which the Clause shall apply. It is our contention that modern factories are of such a character that the whole of the place is dangerous, and that you cannot prescribe only certain machines in a factory which is highly


mechanised and is full of all kinds of dangerous apparatus. There is a constant influx of new machinery, and even though the Home Secretary uses his power to prescribe machines which are already known to be dangerous, by constant improvement other kinds of machinery may be rendered dangerous, and the change may not be discovered until some accident has happened.
Over and over again we had to refer, in the Standing Committee, to the device of giving the Minister power. In the matter we are now considering the law itself might be made so strong in the interests of young persons as not to require the driving force of a Home Office order or regulation. The present Home Secretary may be keen enough in these matters, but Home Secretaries, like other Ministers, if they do not die, sometimes fade away and change, and we might have another Home Secretary who would not be so keen about regulations and prescriptions. Home Secretaries' prescriptions are like doctors' prescriptions; they come too late as a rule, when the damage has been done. We prefer to rely upon prevention rather than upon cure. It is better to put a fence around a cliff than to provide an ambulance down in the valley.
What machines are to be prescribed? In the main, they would be those which have been involved in accidents. There is no disputing the fact that accidents in factories and workshops have been steadily increasing. They are very high in number and have been getting higher; but more important than the increase in the number of accidents is the fact, which was pointed out in the Standing Committee, that the rate of accidents among young persons is very much higher than it is among adults. Among boys it is, I believe, 38 per cent. above the rate for older persons. It is as high as 65 per cent. in the case of girls. Every one knows, in these days, when people are regarded as old at 40, that there is a tendency for more and more young persons, particularly young girls, to go into factories to look after machines. If the Amendment were accepted, it would mean that safety-first instructions would be part of the terms of employment of a young person. I believe that it is a perfectly sound idea. The time to prevent accidents is when the workers are young and in the impressionable period of their lives, by giving them instruction in

matters about which they are usually quite oblivious when they go into a factory.
Many young persons have a good deal of machine sense, much more than was the case a few years ago, but very few young people have a sense of the dangers that lie around them in the modern factory, especially from the large amount of electrical apparatus which is there. When a machine goes wrong, there is a tendency for the young person to try to put it right and he may run into danger. One of the surest ways of keeping the accident rate down, among both young and old, is to insist upon safety-first instruction as part of the terms of employment for young persons.
Hon. Members opposite may think that we are asking for a great deal in putting this Amendment forward, but I want them to bear in mind that we cannot estimate the importance, not only to the young persons and their families, but to the community, of the loss of a hand or a finger. It is a terrible tragedy, and if such tragedies can be prevented by reasonable instruction which will not cost anything, I think we ought to carry this Amendment. What I am asking for is already being done in the best places. We want to bring the indifferent or callous employer up to the level of the best. The Amendment would give us a new generation of industrial workers who, by training and by habit, would avoid many of the dangers which have wrecked many good lives in the past.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend has outlined its purpose fully. The Clause lays down that protection should be given to young persons in relation to certain kinds of machinery. There are machines which are classed as dangerous by the inspectors. What we now have in mind is that young persons should have a course of instruction before they tend those machines. There is danger in all machines, and that being so, what is the line of demarcation? We suggest that young persons who use machinery should be given instruction, and I do not think any one could raise objection to that suggestion. All doubt would be removed about young persons having knowledge of the machine they were working. None of us would like to think that young persons were injured because


of the absence of such instruction. If we do not carry our point this afternoon, and a young person is allowed to work at some such machinery and an accident takes place, hon. Members may be very regretful that they did not take the course that we are now suggesting, in order to protect that young person.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I well understand the point of view of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, but I am going to ask the House to consider the matter from the standpoint of the interests of the young persons themselves. I hope to convince the House that this is not a wise proposal. The Clause to which it is moved was a new Clause moved in Committee by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen) and accepted by the Home Office. We are determined to make full use of its powers because we want them to be really effective, and for that purpose we think it is better that the Clause should remain as it is, giving the Home Secretary power to specify machines. Then, in the course of administration, we can apply the words used in the new Clause, with regard to full instruction, sufficient training and adequate supervision. Those words will then mean something and not be a mere routine, or something which has to be done because it is imposed by an Act of Parliament, and to be gone through by everybody in the factory more or less as a matter of form. We do not want the matter put upon that basis. We want it upon the basis of the Clause as it now is, the Home Secretary specifying machines as dangerous to young persons, so that serious steps have to be taken about it.
I would ask the House to consider the position in a factory. Undoubtedly a considerable number of the machines will not be dangerous to young persons. I understand that in the use of sewing machines you have only to tell the young persons to keep their fingers from under the needle. I am informed that knitters in the hosiery trade are even safer than sewing machines. A factory owner will have to depute one of the men to give sufficient training or adequate supervision. Do not let us strain the patience of our workpeople too much by telling them to do something which is not really necessary in particular cases, because that

will not do any good. If we give this power to the Home Secretary we can then administer and interpret the law as meaning something. My right hon. Friend fully intends to make full use of this power because we regard it as important. After the Bill is passed the Home Office will be issuing lists of machines which my right hon. Friend thinks come within the terms of the Clause.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: If I were considering this matter for the first time I should probably be impressed by the language used. Reference is made to sufficient training and to adequate supervision. Theoretically, those would appear to be very adequate safeguards. Unless machines require skill, or must be used in order to obtain skill, I prefer the Amendment as against the Clause. I understand that a young male person is someone under the age of 18. Among what class of persons do accidents happen in factories to-day? Appalling accidents happen to men of mature experience, not because they have not been adequately trained or from lack of adequate supervision, but because of certain factors inside the human being, to which a youth is more likely to be subject than an adult. However well he may be trained, a young person is more likely than an older person to meet with an accident from a dangerous machine because, by virtue of being young, he has not the same power of concentration upon the work for the whole of the time.
I have seen, more particularly in my later years, most appalling accidents to young persons, and I am sure that the machines they were working could not have been safer, so far as human devices could make them safe. Despite this fact, the accidents happened. A dangerous machine is an instrument which ought not to be available to a young person to work. If a machine is so dangerous that it must be specially scheduled by the Home Office, it is too dangerous for a young person to come into contact with. With regard to supervision, there can be no adequate supervision where dangerous machinery is concerned. The young persons must operate the machines themselves, and they cannot have the constant supervision of someone looking over their shoulders and telling them how to do this or that operation. However good the supervision may be, it must permit


the young person to act on his own initiative. I cannot visualise such adequate supervision that, if a machine is dangerous, the supervision would save him from injury in all circumstances.
If a machine is so dangerous that it must be scheduled for special supervision by the Home Office, it is of such a character that no young person ought to be permitted to work it. If there were a scarcity of labour, there might be some justification for this provision in certain circumstances, but I am sure there is no necessity to-day for young persons to be exposed to the dangers which arise from machines of this character. There are plenty of men available for this type of work. The only other justification that I can see is the one I have already mentioned, namely, the necessity for the use of a dangerous machine in the acquisition of skill in craftsmanship. Then it would be an incident of the young person's training; but usually that is not the case. Work on machines of the character contemplated in a Clause like this is invariably a blind-alley occupation, requiring little skill and not representing any step towards the skill that is required for a craftsman in the future. I hope that the House will insist on the deletion of this Sub-section. Theoretically it may be good, but in practice I feel sure it is too big a danger to be allowed to remain in the Bill.

5.17 p.m.

Sir John Haslam: We have listened to a very interesting discourse from a fellow-townsman of mine, who has strayed away from his native place. It would have been a very helpful speech if it had been relevant. I am one who is very anxious to avoid accidents of all descriptions, and I would not grudge any expense or any measure if I thought it was going to help towards safety. But, after studying the Clause, I think it is much better that the Home Office should draw the attention of the employer, the heads of the factory and the employés to a dangerous machine than that there should be a general Act of Parliament stating that all machinery must not be touched by young persons unless certain conditions have been fulfilled. We all know that it is necessary to put up labels where there is high tension electricity and so on, and therefore people avoid the danger. When our attention has been drawn to any danger, we try to avoid it. But there is danger all around us, and, if our attention is

never drawn to it, we simply ignore it, The Home Office are experts on these matters, and they should have the power to draw the attention of everyone concerned to the fact that in a certain factory there are machines which are more dangerous than others. In the case of some machines it would be silly and futile to draw attention to the fact that they are dangerous, because people who know the machines would laugh at the instruction and think it was a waste of time. When, however, a special instruction comes from the Home Office to everyone concerned pointing out that a particular machine in a particular room on a particular floor is dangerous and ought to be avoided, or approached only with great care, I am sure it would be far more effective than a general instruction such as is proposed] by those who support the Amendment.

5.20 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: It seems to me that the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) has not appreciated the object of the Amendment. The question simply is whether young people should be trained in the case of special machines, or whether they should be given training and supervision whatever machines they are going to use. The request we are making seems to me to be a very modest one. It is limited to young persons. We say that, as far as young persons are concerned, all machinery should be considered to be potentially dangerous, and that at least a certain minimum of training and supervision should be provided. The Under-Secretary said that some machines are not in the least dangerous, and spoke of a sewing machine. I have no doubt that he had in mind the ordinary domestic sewing machine which is worked by turning a handle, but the sewing machines used in modern industry, such as high-power clothing machines, can be extremely dangerous, and one has only to look at the records of the insurance companies to see how many accidents occur to young girls who are put to work at these machines without adequate training.
It may be said that obviously a young girl would not be put to work on a power machine without training, but, unfortunately, the difficulty often is that the older people get so accustomed to these machines that they see no danger in them, and naturally tend to lose vigilance when they are dealing with young persons. In a case within my own


knowledge a young girl was told by her forewoman to go and help with a machine. She said she did not know anything about it. The forewoman was tired and worried, and replied impatiently, "Go and find out." The girl, afraid of losing her job, went to try to find out. She did not know how to start the thing, she started it with her fingers in the wrong place, and the result was that some of her fingers were cut off, and she had to be paid pretty heavy compensation. The forewoman, who was distressed at the accident, said, when I interviewed her, that she would never have believed it possible for anyone to put their fingers in that place.
It is that kind of thing for which we are legislating. Where young people who have just left school are employed on any machine in a factory full of machinery they should not be left to "go and find out." To give the Minister power to specify where machines are considered to be dangerous really makes the position rather difficult. Where machines are dangerous, and are recognised as dangerous, it is hardly necessary to have an Act of Parliament saying that young persons must not be put to work on a dangerous machine without being told what the dangers are. In such a case the older people would recognise the danger and would tell the young people of it. It is just in those cases where the forewoman does not see anything dangerous that these children need supervision. It would be much better to say that young persons should not be allowed to deal with any machine until they have been told how to manage it. The acceptance of the Amendment would really only affect power machinery, and I do not think it would add anything to anybody's costs.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I rise only to say a word in reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). In taking up the example I gave, and giving some further examples of her own, the hon. Lady has given me a good opportunity to illustrate our position. What I had in mind was the ordinary domestic sewing machine, which, as I think the hon. Lady will agree, is not on the whole a very dangerous implement, and is not, therefore one for which it is necessary to lay down these formidable require-

ments in regard to its use by young persons. But the hon. Lady pointed out that other kinds of sewing machines—power-driven sewing machines—were formidable and dangerous machines. If they are, the Clause as it stands will enable my right hon. Friend to distinguish betwen these two types of sewing machines on the lines of common sense. He will not have to deal with the harmless sewing machine, but he can, and, if the machine is as formidable as the hon. Lady says, he probably will, deal by regulation with the dangerous one. I would emphasise once again that in the interests of the young persons themselves we regard the powers in the Bill as it stands as being in their most effective form, without the Amendment, and my right hon. Friend specifically authorises me to say that he does intend to use these powers fully. It is not merely a question of specifying some particular machine that is very dangerous; we intend to issue lists of machines where danger is reasonably likely to occur to young persons; and it may be more a question of excluding machines which we feel are not dangerous rather than the other way round. I think we shall be able to make more effective use of the Clause if it is left as it now stands.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: This is a new provision, and we who were Members of the Standing Committee were agreeably surprised when it was proposed. It is very welcome to us on this side, for without it a great deal would have been missed in the training of young persons in the use of dangerous machinery. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have done good service in calling attention to the necessity for training young persons in the use of dangerous machinery, but, if they will not mind my making the suggestion, I think they may be satisfied with the assurance of the Under-Secretary that the Home Office will go into this problem very carefully. The growth of machinery in all manner of factories has literally been colossal, and engineering science has made it almost impossible to follow some of this new machinery. I trust that the Home Office will watch this matter very carefully, and that my hon. Friends, having received that assurance, will find it possible to withdraw their Amendment.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Mander: We on these benches warmly welcome this new provision, and regard it as a valuable addition to the Bill. As to the way in which it is going to be worked, I think it would be useful as a guide if the representatives of the Government would be good enough to say whether they would regard as dangerous the machinery which is used for the purposes of stamping and drop forging, and in which my constituency is particularly interested. A large number of young girls and youths are employed in connection with this work at Willenhall, and my constituents would certainly feel very strongly that they ought to be brought within the provisions of this Clause. I am inclined to think that the Amendment would be the wiser way to deal with it, but it would be useful to have some guidance as to the way the Home Office intend to interpret it.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: It seems to me that all the arguments advanced by the Under-Secretary with regard to machines that might be described as dangerous must apply equally to machines of all kinds, because if a machine is discovered not to possess anything of a dangerous character, no time would be expended by the foreman or by the previous worker at the machine in instructing a new entrant who is going to handle it. The productive capacity of virtually all machines has increased by some 200 to 300 per cent. during the last 10 years. The machine that I worked as an apprentice, having two tools, is to-day replaced by one which has 10 tools, an ingenious machine which is very dangerous unless adequate instruction is given. But, no matter how simple a machine may be, I think the obligation should be laid upon someone to tell a newcomer that there are certain precautions that ought to be taken.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Porritt: It seems to me that a child entering a factory containing many different types of machines might easily become injured by attending to one which he thought he would be able to look after by himself. A notice would not be a sufficient safeguard and it might be advisable to have some distinctive mark, such as a metal disc, put on to each individual machine to indicate that an

inexperienced newcomer would not be able to look after it by himself.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The Under-Secretary said that certain machines were so simple that it would be foolish to suggest that special precautions should be taken or training given. I remember that when I was an apprentice a playmate of mine got a job cutting wood with a circular saw, and lost his fingers, and a number of my fellow apprentices have lost joints while looking after machines which were not dangerous. It used to be said that, if you went to an engineers' branch meeting and a vote was taken and you saw hands going up, wherever you looked you saw vacant spaces in the hands. Is a drilling machine dangerous? I will guarantee that 99 lads out of 100 will feel with their finger to see if the drill has come through. I have done it myself. If it has come through, off goes the first joint of the finger. It does not matter how simple a machine is, it is necessary to take the greatest care to give instructions to the lads as to what it is permissible to do and what must be systematically avoided. If a lad loses a finger or two, it is a big handicap for the rest of his life. The effect of carrying the Amendment will not prevent the Home Secretary drawing attention to particularly dangerous machines. While the most serious accidents arise from dangerous machines, the greatest number arise from machines which would never be scheduled as dangerous.

5.40 p.m.

Wing-Commander Wright: I should like to say a few words from the point of view of an owner of a factory to which a Clause of this kind would apply. It is obvious that instruction must be given to all young people starting work, whatever the type of machine may be, but in many factories there are a great number of machines on which young people can be put to work after a very cursory instruction, though, no matter how much instruction has been given, there will always be accidents arising from carelessness with perfectly simple machines. What the Clause is aiming at, and what I should like to support, is a real effort to see that proper instruction and supervision are provided in the case of machines which are really dangerous. Having had a close association with workpeople, and understanding


their mentality, I realise that they become accustomed to working with machines all round them; they look upon it as quite an ordinary state of affairs and do not regard the machines as dangerous at all. If you are going to make a general rule like this, applying to all processes whether they require special instruction or not, the only result that you will achieve will be to make everyone careless. You will not raise the standard of instruction for the simple machines to the standard required for instruction on dangerous machines. You will, on the other hand, bring down the standard of the instruction given on the dangerous machines to the level of the simple machines. For that reason I think the Amendment should be strongly opposed. The Clause is a most excellent one, which has all my sympathy as an employer of labour.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: After what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Erdington (Wing-Commander Wright) one is more concerned to see that the Amendment is passed, though I realise that it will probably be withdrawn. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that if you train or teach people how to operate a machine you create greater difficulty for the employer; and that in respect of the simple machine you should give a very cursory instruction and should only prescribe the dangerous machines. Surely anyone who has any care for his machinery and its protection should give training to anyone who is to operate it. Sufficient training should be given to any boy or girl put to a particular machine. I have tried to understand the position of the Government. The effect of the Amendment is that no young person should be put to a machine unless he has been instructed, and that that condition should operate for all machines. Young persons should be warned of the dangers, if there are dangers. The Government say "No, we must wait until our Home Office inspectors have gone through the whole gamut of machines and catalogues to see which we should prescribe as dangerous.' I should like to know how they are to operate this particular Sub-section. Are they now going to examine all the machines in operation in industry, and each new machine, and decide whether they are dangerous and whether young people should be allowed to operate

them? I think that it would be an advantage to accept the Amendment, which would ensure that young persons would have sufficient training to enable them to operate machines, and that there would be adequate supervision by a person with thorough knowledge and experience.
I have seen what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has described. I have suffered from such conditions, and especially with regard to drilling machines. I do not want to see other people having to learn by experience. It was a pretty expensive school for those of us who have had to learn, and we are asking that the employer should do his duty to those who are in his service, that young people should have sufficient training before being permitted to operate machines, and that they should be warned of the dangers. The Home Office says that it is going to warn them of the dangers only after they have inspected all the machines and have prescribed some of them. If a youngster meets with an accident on a machine which is not prescribed, the employer will get away with it by stating, "It was not my fault. The Home Office was not up to date and did not prescribe the machine." Although a child may meet with a serious injury, this is the position in which we shall be placed under this Bill.

5.49 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I think that I can remove some of the anxieties of hon. Members opposite if I say a word or two about this Clause. I attach very great importance to it. It is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill. It is breaking new ground that urgently needs to be broken. Even in the few days I have been at the Home Office, I have been greatly impressed with the formidable number of accidents to young persons, and I realise at once that one of my principal duties at the Home Office will be to take every possible step to get those numbers greatly reduced. When I first saw this Clause I asked myself the same kinds of questions that have been put to the House this afternoon by the two hon. Members who brought forward the Amendment, but I have quite definitely come to the conclusion, having exactly the same objective in mind as they have, namely, the determination to get the number of accidents to young persons somehow or other reduced, that


the most effective way to deal with them is to do so on the lines of the Clause and not on the lines of the Amendment.
I feel sure, from what I have heard from my advisers, that the only object of putting every kind of machine into this Clause would be to lower the general standard that we wish to apply to this system of training. Let the House remember once again that we are not only dealing with great power factories, but with hundreds of thousands of small factories and workshops, and if we brought into operation a general provision such as is suggested in the Amendment, quite obviously it would not apply to some of these small workshops to which I have just made allusion. The only result of it would be to lower the general standard in the way in which this provision is applied in the power factories, where we wish to see it applied. All of us having exactly the same objective, and having had, as we have this afternoon, a very interesting discussion, in which we have been able to show that we are all equally anxious to reduce the number of these accidents, my advice to the House is that we should not accept the Amendment on the ground that we should get a higher standard in the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Burke: In view of the explanation of the Home Secretary and his expressed determination to see that the Clause becomes really operative, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 22.—(Hoists and lifts.)

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 14, line 4, to leave out from the beginning to "be," in line 5.
This Amendment, which has been put down in the name of my right hon. Friend, is to be followed by a number of a simliar and consequential Amendments all having the same object, which is to meet a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) during the discussion in Standing Committee (B). The hon. Member rightly pointed out on that occasion that it was important to make it as clear as possible that any existing hoists which would reasonably be properly fitted with interlocking devices should be so fitted. It has, as a matter of fact, always been our intention to do this, but our drafting did not quite clearly con-

vey our purpose. We have now reconsidered the Clause and we have redrafted it in a way which, I hope, will satisfy the hon Member that it is quite clearly necessary to fit these interlocking devices on existing hoists where it is reasonably practicable.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Short: I am obliged to the Home Secretary for having submitted these Amendments. I indicated during the Committee stage that we were dissatisfied with the drafting of the Clause, particularly in relation to existing lifts, and I suggested that steps should be taken, within the Clause, to ensure that suitable safety devices will be applied where possible and practicable to existing lifts. The Home Secretary appears to have met this point. I am very well satisfied, and we shall offer no opposition to these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 14, line 12, leave out "(b) in other cases, be," and insert:
Provided that, in the case of a hoist or lift constructed or reconstructed before the passing of this Act which it is not reasonably practicable to fit with such devices as aforesaid, it shall be sufficient if the gate is.

In line 15, leave out "be," and insert "is."

In line 22, leave out "any part of the hoist or lift and."

In line 23, at the end, insert "and any other moving part of the hoist or lift."

Leave out lines 37 and 38.

In line 43, leave out from "opened," to "provided," in line 2, page 15, and insert:
Provided that in the case of a hoist or lift constructed or reconstructed before the passing of this Act in connection with which it is not reasonably practicable ao provide such devices as aforesaid, it shall be sufficient if such arrangements are.

In page 15, line 4, leave out "shall be," and insert "is."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

CLAUSE 23.—(Chains, ropes and lifting tackle.)

5.57 p.m.

Mr. White: I beg to move, in page 16, line 16, to leave out from "premises," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert:
so, however, that the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in relation


to any lifting tackle if the safe-working load thereof or, in the case of a multiple sling, the safe-working load at different angles of the legs is plainly marked upon it.
The object of the Amendment is to remove a certain obscurity which appears to exist in the intention of the paragraph. I have also tried to prescribe a practice in regard to safety conditions concerning lifts and appliances which, it appears to us, would afford a greater measure of safety. It has been found in the course of the experience Of those who are responsible for the working of lifting machinery and appliances that it is not only practicable but very desirable to have the safe-loading weight clearly marked on the machines, and, where necessary, on different parts of the machines. In fact I should not have been surprised if it had been decided to adopt the requirement of the safe-loading weight to be fixed upon the machine as an alternative method in some cases to the keeping of a register of the machines authorised to be used. That is not proposed, and I would not wish to propose it, but there is a certain obscurity in the Clause as to the precise method which it is intended should be followed, and also a certain difficulty for those responsible for the working of these machines to ascertain precisely where the responsibility lies. We believe that the Amendment would clear up that obscurity and lead to a better procedure.

Mr. Mander: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I do not intend to say very much at this stage, because this question will arise later, but I hope that the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary, acting an his behalf at present, will not accept the Amendment. I have had experience in dealing with this kind of thing, and I know of nothing upon which the Home Office officials are keener. They have tightened up the regulations during the past few years. Lifting tackle now has to be very carefully looked after and reported upon from time to time. The whole of the chains have to be constantly annealed, and the wire ropes and the ordinary ropes subjected to keen examination. I understood that the previous Amendments moved by the Home Secretary had for their object the tightening up even of the present methods, and, there-

fore anything that is suggested which tends to weaken what we think is already too weak a Bill should be resisted, and we hope that the Home Secretary will not be prepared to accept the Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) that it is most important that there should be proper safeguards in these matters. Of course, as he knows, the Bill greatly strengthens the provisions of the law. I think he is under a misapprehension on this point. The important thing is to see that the people who are going to deal with this tackle know the actual strain in regard to it. Our intention was to prescribe in the Bill that the safe working load should be either marked in the table which has to be kept, or plainly marked on the tackle itself, but I am advised that our drafting was not altogether clear for that purpose. All that the hon. Member's Amendment does is, I am advised, to make that point clear—that it should be either in the table or on the tackle. I think that is reasonable and I am prepared to accept the Amendment, subject to our giving it further examination from the drafting point of view.

Amendment agreed to.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. White: I beg to move, in page 16, line 20, after "shall," to insert "except for the purpose of a test."
I move this Amendment because in connection with this class of machinery there does not appear to be any provision in the Bill for making a test. It is very desirable that these machines should be tested adequately and properly from time to time. Clause 24, which deals with cranes, in Sub-section (5) makes provision which enables a crane to be tested, and I am at a loss to know why similar provision has not been inserted in Clause 23. I move the Amendment subject to an explanation.

Mr. Mander: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: According to the information that I have, this is an Amendment which might well excite the suspicion of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith). It would not be wise for us to accept the Amendment. The proper


method of testing these things is not by using them, but by putting them in a testing machine or by taking sample. The Amendment might open the door to the use of chains, etc., with excessive loads, on the plea that they were being tested. It would enable a chain to be used regardless of its strength for the purpose of making a test on some other tackle, which would clearly be objectionable. I hope the hon. Member will appreciate that we feel that that would open the door to a dangerous practice.

Mr. White: In view of what the Under-Secretary has said, I also should regard the Amendment with suspicion. Therefore, I shall be glad to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 24.—(Cranes and other lifting machines.)

6.3 p.m.

Mr. White: I beg to move, in page 18, line 3, at the end, to insert:
Provided that a lifting machine may be loaded beyond the safe-working load in exceptional cases to such extent and subject to such conditions as may be approved on each occasion by the makers of such lifting machine if—

(a) on each occasion the written permission of the owner or his responsible agent has been obtained; and
(b) a record of the overload is made in the register."
The exceptional cases with which the Amendment deals are not frequent, but they do occur from time to time. They are dealt with under the docks regulations made in pursuance of Section 79 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, Regulation 30. This is the machinery under which these exceptional loads are transported from time to time. No one need regard the Amendment with suspicion, because its only object is to strengthen the existing procedure. I should like to draw attention to the docks regulation to which I have referred. Regulation 30 says:
No machinery, chains or other lifting appliance shall be loaded beyond the safe working load except that a crane may be loaded beyond a safe working load in exceptional cases to such extent and subject to such conditions as may be approved by the engineer in charge or other competent person, if on each occasion

(i) the written permission of the owner or his responsible agent has been obtained;
(ii) a record of the overload is kept."

That is the procedure now followed, and although it does allow the overloading of machines it is done with proper precautions and with full knowledge of what is happening. That would be a safer method of procedure than by adopting any other alternative method. Our Amendment differs, however, from the docks regulation in one important particular, and that is, instead of requiring the permission or approval of the engineer in charge, we substitute the maker of the machine. We feel that the calling in of the engineer in charge is not, perhaps, the best method of securing safety, because he has not necessarily any special qualification for saying whether a particular machine will carry a particular load. The one person in the world who is really competent to do that and to say what the machine will carry is the maker of the machine. Moreover, the maker of the machine is the one man who is least likely to give permission for too heavy a load to be carried, because his reputation would suffer and might be irretrievably damaged if his machine broke down. We think that our Amendment is an improvement on the existing practice, and one that might well be commended to the House.
There is no method in the Bill of ascertaining or prescribing what the safe working load of the machine or crane is to be. The only method is to put on the machine some load which is considered to be a safe working load, and there is a danger that an excessive load might be put on to the machine because it might be considered near to the testing load of the machine. We feel that if an Amendment of this kind is not accepted there may be a tendency to mark up the safe working load on the assumption that that is much nearer to the testing load, with the result that operations may be carried out, not merely special operations, but ordinary day-to-day transactions, which might involve greater risks. I have dealt with the matter in some detail because it is technical, and I think the Amendment might well be added to the Bill.

Mr. O. Evans: I beg to second the Amendment.

6. 11 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I would appeal to the Under-Secretary not to accept this Amendment. I should like to repeat what I have said as to my experience in


regard to factory inspectors and other officials whose duty it is to watch these things. If there are any public officials in this country who try to carry out their duties to the best possible extent, it is the inspectors who go to the factories and workshops to examine these machines. The Amendments which have been moved by the Home Office have been intended to tighten up the regulations and improve the Bill, but the Amendment now before the House, although the Movers may not be conscious of it, would weaken the regulations and the Bill. The report of the factory inspectors for 1935 shows that there were 2,690 accidents in that year caused by these kinds of machines. Year after year the factory inspectors and the Home Office have set themselves the task of reducing these accidents, and it has only been by the tightening up of the regulations that: these accidents have been reduced. Yet we have a proposal made to-clay which would weaken the object of the officials and the Department.
It is a common practice in factories for cranes and lifting tackle to move anything from 30 to 50 tons, certainly much more than the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) suggested. I prefer to understate rather than over-state the case, in order to secure the support of the House for the rejection of this Amendment. It is a common thing to see large weights, turbines, moulds, etc., being moved about while men in the foundries or machine shops go on with their work with complete confidence, and without any interruption in production. That is because the men who are working under these cranes which are lifting these weights have complete confidence in the slinger. They have confidence because it is the duty of the manufacturer of the lifting machines and cranes to indicate quite clearly on the lifting machines and cranes the maximum weight that they may lift. If we undermine the provisions which have brought about that confidence on the part of the men, we shall create lack of confidence, and the result will be to retard production and create unnecessary friction inside the shops. Although we are not satisfied with the Bill, because we believe it is lagging behind public opinion. we say that, let us not be responsible for weakening it, but rather let us maintain the confidence of the work-people and thereby maintain production,

realising that they have confidence because there is a clear indication of the weights that may be lifted.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) has made an interesting point with regard to the attitude of the men in a factory. But this is really a matter of some difficulty. Everyone will agree that if we were starting to examine this question there is theoretically the possibility that if the safe working load of a lifting machine is carefully estimated it would be a great convenience under proper safeguards and in special circumstances to give permission for this exception—

Mr. George Griffiths: That is rather a risk.

Mr. Lloyd: Theoretically it is the kind of case under the Docks Regulation Act, but it must be under very exceptional conditions. In the docks you are dealing with important dock authorities, and the lifting machines and cranes, which are generally well constructed and maintained, are under the supervision of well trained engineers. That makes a good deal of difference. It may be that in big and technically well conducted companies in the country similar conditions exist, but I must point out that the Amendment would have a general application to all factories, and we cannot rely upon the same standard of maintenance being maintained on these lifting machines, or the likelihood of there being a person sufficiently well qualified to judge as to the safety of the overload of a machine. I recognise that the hon. Member has endeavoured to meet that point by requiring the written permission of the maker of the machine.

Mr. White: We think that the maker of the machine is the best man in the world to say what the machine can do.

Mr. Lloyd: I am advised that the maker of a small lifting machine is just the man who is not in a good position to advise whether the machine can safely be allowed to take an overload in particular circumstances. If these lifting machines have been in use in factories for a considerable time one does not know the condition of their maintenance. The position of the Home Office is that, while we appreciate that there is a possibility in


certain circumstances that this permission might be granted, as it is under the Docks Regulation Act, we feel that the Amendment is dangerous because it will allow a relaxation which might really be objectionable and dangerous in a considerable number of factories. We must have regard to the fact that while accidents caused by these lifting machines are not very numerous, when they do occur they are extremely serious. Therefore, we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. White: I should like to say that my intention in moving the Amendment was to strengthen the existing conditions relating to these transactions, but if the Amendment is so wide as to deal with these smaller machines I will not press it, and I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 25.—(Construction and maintenance of floors, passages, stairs and ladders.)

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I beg to move, in page 18, line 24, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where through any process carried on in any factory or otherwise the floor of any workroom is apt to become slippery effective steps shall be taken to prevent accidents.
The Amendment is self-explanatory. In my opinion it deals with an important point. There are in industry many processes in which men work with acids and oils very close to dangerous wells and vats. I think it is necessary that they should be prevented from falling down on slippery floors and other obstacles which may be there. I should like the Clause to have been more widely drawn, and to have included all dangerous floors. In the great steel centres men have to carry molten steel in what are called shanks on their shoulders, and if the foundry floor is full of boxes and obstacles that floor is dangerous, although it may not he slippery. If the Under-Secretary will indicate that the Government agree with the principle, and will give the Clause a wider application in another place, we should be perfectly satisfied. But even as the Clause is drawn, with its limited application, there is an overwhelming case for the Amendment. Take a rolling mill. It is possible for men to slip on the floor, and when that happens there is a very distressing accident. In the steel industry very often dangerous acids

get on the floor and cause serious accidents.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Clause deals with preventable accidents of all sorts. It says that all floors shall be of sound construction and properly maintained with a view to avoiding accidents. In my own experience a number of accidents occur each year through persons slipping on floors which have got slippery by reason of the particular industry carried on in the factory. Take the confectionery industry, where jam and sugar get on the floor. I have known cases of girls carrying hot water and slipping on the floor and being scalded. I am certain that this is the most fruitful source of accidents in the confectionery industry. I hope the Under-Secretary will be sympathetic to the Amendment and introduce something in the Bill which will prevent what I regard as perfectly preventable accidents.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Messer: The importance of the Amendment may not be apparent at first sight. Those who have had an experience of factory life, or who have visited factories for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of accidents, will know that there are a number of trades and industries the nature of which prevents the floors from being anything but safe. Quite frankly I do not know how the Amendment would be operated; I do not know how you are going to prevent a floor getting into a slippery state. I should like to make a suggestion. The confectionery trade has been mentioned. I have in mind an occasion at a jam-making factory where in the course of the work water was spilt on the floor, over which men were carrying huge vessels of boiling jam. One of the men slipped and the whole contents of some gallons of boiling jam went over his legs. He was injured for life.
I remember an accident quite recently in a laundry. The water from the boilers was allowed to escape along a. trough. The floors were wet and a girl passing slipped into the boiling water which had just been set free. In the comparatively new industry of cellulose-spraying it is impossible to avoid the cellulose getting on the floor, and the floor is made slippery. There is only one way by which


things can be improved—I do not know how they are going to be prevented—and that is by insisting that in this type of work the floor shall be corrugated or roughened so as to minimise the possibility of slipping. It is not a popular thing with many employers to have floors which are difficult to clean; hence the reason why many of them are not corrugated and chipped. It means that the cleaning of the floors takes up so much more time. But it is the duty of this House to have regard to the possibility of avoiding accidents and to take what steps are possible to minimise them, even if they cannot be entirely prevented.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: I think all hon. Members svmpathise with the Amendment, but as it stands it is merely a pious resolution such as we get from our constituents on many political matters. If effective steps could be taken to prevent accidents, that is the ideal of all of us, but it would be better still if we could be told how this is to be done. The matter of dangerous floors and the examples we have been given can be dealt with under the wide powers which the Minister takes to himself under the Bill, but it is impossible, surely, to define what is a slippery floor. A floor may be slippery to a man wearing rubber boots and perfectly safe to a man wearing leather boots—and vice versa. I hope that such a slipshod, and to my mind quite ineffective, proposal will not be put into the Bill.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: Everybody agrees with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that slipperiness is a very undesirable feature in connection with floors, although I agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) that it rather depends upon the man as to how much he slips, and if I may say so, a man as powerfully built as the hon. Member for Sowerby is more likely to slip than some others. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is already in Clause 25, Subsection (1), a general provision that all floors shall be properly maintained. I think hon. Members will agree that that provision goes a certain distance to meet the case. I was interested to notice that both the hon. Member for Sowerby and

the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) commented upon the phrase in the Amendment:
effective steps shall be taken to prevent accidents.
My right hon. Friend and I were criticised yesterday for the vagueness of a proposal that we brought forward, but that proposal did not begin to be vague when compared with the phrase to which I have referred. I am advised that it would be a most unwise step to insert in a Statute which creates criminal offences a requirement which gives the occupiers of the factories only the most vague indications as to what they are to do. Slipperiness is undoubtedly produced in some cases by the nature of the process employed. It arises from different causes and can be dealt with only by a variety of means. We consider that it would be better to leave the factory occupiers to deal with the matter as part of the ordinary safety-first arrangements in the factory.
The methods of dealing with slipperiness are very diverse. Sometimes sand is sprinkled on the floor. In another peculiar case, that of a dye printing works, of which I know, it is extraordinarily difficult to deal with the slipperiness. The firm, which is an up-to-date one, tried three or four methods, and have now had to resort to the wearing of special footwear. Sometimes the situation is met by providing handrails and so on. We feel that the best way of dealing with this question would not be to have a vague general requirement, which would not do very much good, but to leave it to the Secretary of State, under Clause 59, when making regulations for dangerous trades, to insert provisions dealing with slipperiness of floors. My right hon. Friend has these powers already and has used them. For example, in the Dock Regulations, regulation 36 (c) provides for the use of sand on slippery stages, and the Woodworking Machine Regulations require that chips and other material shall be cleaned away from the neighbourhood of machines and that some type of non-slippery flooring shall be used. There are in the Home Office Industrial Museum specimens of non-slippery tiles, of carborundum powder glued by a special process to the floor, and so on. It would be useless to lay down a general, vague and almost certainly ineffective provision, and I feel


that it would be better to deal with the matter, as my right hon. Friend can, under the regulations to be issued under Clause 59.

Mr. Silkin: If the hon. Gentleman informs me that he intends to look into this problem with a view to making regulations under the Bill to deal with it, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Lloyd: When my right hon. Friend is making regulations with regard to dangerous trades, I can undertake that he will consider this aspect as well.

6.35 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: Do I understand that the regulations are to be only for those trades that are regarded as dangerous? Slipperiness of floors is often one of the dangerous factors in trades that are otherwise not considered dangerous. Therefore, if the Under-Secretary restricts his promise to dangerous trades only, I think it will be rather unfortunate. Perhaps he will be good enough to give a further explanation.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that Clause 59 covers the matter, and that it would be reasonable to hold the view that slipperiness in an extreme form would constitute a danger with which my right hon. Friend would have power to deal.

Mr. Messer: Would the cases I mentioned be covered?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot give an assurance with regard to any particular case.

Miss Wilkinson: I would not like any misunderstanding to exist as to the phrases which the hon. Gentleman is using; otherwise, when we look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, we may find that we have accepted assurances which we thought were much wider than they really were. The hon. Gentleman has used some limiting phrases such as "slipperiness in an extreme form," and he might say, for instance, that a chocolate factory was not covered by that assurance. May we understand definitely that the question of slipperiness will be looked into in the case of all trades and not only in extreme cases or in dangerous trades? It seems to me that many unnecessary slipping accidents would be avoided if some general provision were made with regard to slipperiness.

Mr. Lloyd: In reply to the hon. Lady, we have been examining Clause 59, and there is no doubt about my right hon. Friend's powers under it. The hon. Lady and the House will understand that we cannot give an undertaking with regard to particular trades without special examination. My right hon. Friend will make a special examination of certain trades from the point of view of this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Silkin: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 27.—(Precautions in places where dangerous fumes are liable to be present.)

6.39 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 19, line 18, after "manhole," to insert:
which may be rectangular, oval, or circular in shape, and shall be.
This Amendment and the two following ones are purely of a drafting character. Clause 27, when it left the Standing Committee, was not very tidy in wording, and raised some doubts. The Amendments do not affect the substance of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 19, line 18, leave out "an oval."

In line 19, after "wide," insert:
or in the case of a circular manhole, not less than eighteen inches in diameter."—[The Lord Advocate.]

6.40 p.m.

Mr. White: I beg to move, in page 19, line 19, after "wide," to insert:
or in the case of tank wagons and other mobile plant not less than sixteen inches long and fourteen inches wide.
In moving this Amendment, I would like to ascertain the views of the Home Office with regard to certain technical difficulties which will arise, if the Clause is passed in its present form, with regard to tank wagons and other mobile plant. The question of the size of the manholes has been causing very anxious thought on the part of those who are responsible for the movement of very large numbers of these wagons and who have to see that no danger arises either to the public or to those who have to enter the tank wagons for the purposes


of cleaning them, and so on. This is a matter which has been the subject of very considerable research in the past, and research is still proceeding with a view to finding out what is the maximum size that a manhole can be while still leaving requisite strength in the main structure to avoid the serious dangers that would be caused to the general public and to others if the general structure of the wagon were diminished by virtue of the increased size of the manhole.
I understand that there is a very large number of these wagons, and I am anxious to know what will be the position with regard to them under this Clause when it comes into operation. The number is so great that it would take several years to construct new wagons or to adapt the existing wagons if that were necessary. I am told that it would be quite impossible in certain cases to have manholes of the size indicated in the Clause. The Home Office knows of these difficulties and there is a proviso which I have no doubt will enable the chief inspector to deal with the matter in some way or another, but I should be glad to have some information from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. O. Evans: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: This is a very technical matter, and I think the hon. Member has stated the position very much as the technical advisers to the Home Office see it. There is a considerable number of these tank wagons, and it is really the number which makes it desirable that we should discuss the matter in the House. Although we have power to give exemptions under the proviso which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, we should not feel happy in using that power in a considerable number of cases without having had some expression of the views of the House. Nevertheless, I think the matter is clear. These mobile tank wagons are in a separate and distinct category, and in some cases the danger would be increased by insisting on a larger manhole owing to the danger caused by a weakening of the main structure. The containers are often not of a simple kind, but of a highly technical nature, and it would be very undesirable to have any weakening of the structure. The British

Standards Institution, which takes great pride in high industrial and engineering standards, recognises the principle of requiring a much smaller manhole in the case of mobile tank wagons. I am glad the hon. Member has moved this Amendment, which accords with my advice and technical information, and therefore I am glad to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move in page 19, line 28, after "wear," to insert "a suitable breathing apparatus and."
This Amendment is to be taken in conjunction with the following Amendment on the Paper which proposes, in line 31, to leave out from "outside," to the end of line 33. The Clause deals with precautions against dangerous fumes and Sub-section (1, b) provides that where a test has been made of a confined space and the test shows that the space is free from dangerous fumes, no precautions need be taken. But where the space is found not to be free from dangerous fumes, then the Clause, as it stands, provides that any person going into it shall wear a belt to which there is attached a rope by means of which he may be drawn out in case of need, or alternatively, a suitable breathing apparatus. The object of these two Amendments is to provide that where a person has to go into a confined space where dangerous fumes are present, both precautions shall be taken. On the assumption that there are dangerous fumes in a space, it seems an adequate precaution that the man should merely wear a belt attached to a rope by which he may be dragged out. There is the danger that the man may become exhausted by the fumes and it is rather late to drag him out when he has been overcome by the fumes. On the other hand, if he is only wearing the breathing apparatus, he may become exhausted in spite of it and then find himself unable to get out. There should be some means by which a man in those circumstances could be brought out quickly. As the provision is only intended to deal with cases where it is clear that dangerous fumes exist, both precautions are essential and we should not leave the alternative as it is left in the Clause. I hope the Under-Secretary will see the reasonableness of the Amendment.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Gibbins: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the least we can do is to provide not only that the man who goes inside one of these spaces should have breathing apparatus, but also that the man who remains outside to give assistance if need be, should be nearer to him. The Under-Secretary said in Committee that this was a technical matter but it is not really technical at all. If any of the Home Office advisers have ever been in the tank of a ship they ought to know that merely to provide the man outside with a rope is a futile measure. It would have no effect in saving a man who had been overcome by fumes some distance away from the manhole. It would be hopeless to try to pull him through. A man to get to his job may have to crawl, not only through the manhole of the tank but through other manholes inside the tank. What is the use of having someone outside with a rope in his hand if the man working inside is overcome 20 or 30 feet away from the manhole. I suggest that the word "outside" might be eliminated and provision made for the man with the rope being nearer to any possible victim of dangerous fumes. The breathing apparatus would then provide the man inside with a means of keeping alive until assistance was forthcoming.
This Clause ought to be stronger than it is, and I hope that in addition to accepting these two Amendments the Under-Secretary will also look into the question of the danger of fire arising from the use of certain machines in these places. There is no provision in the Bill against that risk. I have known of a man working in a tank being roasted alive and no one could get near him. The use of oxyacetylene burners is common and, apart from the other dangers involved, oxyacetylene fumes are detrimental to health. I have known men after using these machines for some years to become "crocks" through their chests being poisoned and there is also of course the danger of fire. I hope that further consideration will be given to the suggestion of providing another egress for men engaged in this kind of work. There may be cases in which it would be impossible but in almost every case I think it would be possible to have a second means of ingress and egress. At present a man in

order to get out, may have to crawl through a series of manholes.

6.51 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I hope the House will consider this Amendment carefully before accepting it. The Clause itself contains very strong precautionary measures. It provides that all practicable steps are to be taken to remove fumes and to prevent any ingress of fumes. When that has been done, any person entering is to wear either a belt attached to a rope, the free end of which is held by a person outside or else a suitable breathing apparatus. The place having been cleared of fumes and precautions having been taken to prevent further fumes entering, it is now suggested that the person going in should be compelled both to wear the belt attached to the rope and also the breathing apparatus. It is said that a man might set himself on fire. If I set myself on fire I should prefer not to be wearing a breathing apparatus but to be able to shout out and let others know of my dilemma. It is also suggested that men might work in these places with acetylene burners or other machines which throw out noxious fumes, but surely it is already provided that all workers who have to work with noxious fumes must use special apparatus. It would be unwise and not altogether helpful to insist upon this Amendment. There are many technicalities with which I am not capable of dealing but owing to which, I am informed, it would not be very wise to accept this proposal.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: I would like to ascertain whether the Mover of this Amendment has read the Sub-section aright. I do not think he has. He read it as meaning that, first, all practical steps are to be taken to remove fumes and then, unless it has been ascertained that the space is free from fumes, the man entering should wear a belt or a breathing apparatus. He made out that if a suitable test has been made and if it has been found that dangerous fumes are present, the man going in should wear both the belt and the breathing apparatus. But I should say that the effect of the Sub-section is that if it has been found that dangerous fumes are present, the man should not be allowed to go in at all. It is only where it is inconvenient or impossible to make a test that the man


going in is to wear either the belt or the breathing apparatus. If the hon. Member is correct and if people are to be allowed to go into these places, when it has been ascertained that fumes are present, I agree that every conceivable precaution should be taken, but if my reading of the Sub-section is right, the very strong wording at present in the Clause ought to be sufficient.

Mr. Silkin: I think the hon. Member will be found supporting me, because it is clear that the Sub-section requires these precautions to be taken only where a test has been made and the space has been found not to be free from dangerous fumes.

Mr. McCorquodale: That is the point. I do not think the hon. Member's reading is right, but if it is then his point is worthy of consideration.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: It seems clear that the provision of a breathing apparatus is only required where it has not been ascertained by a suitable test that the space is free from dangerous fumes. It is where there has not been a suitable test, that the person going in is required, under the terms of the Clause, either to wear a belt attached to a rope or else a breathing apparatus. In the case of ships' holds it has been proved in many cases that it is impossible to ascertain definitely by any kind of test whether a space is free from fumes or not. That is why we have so many accidents of that type. The only method by which the existence or otherwise of fumes can be definitely tested is by persons entering the space and a person should only be permitted to enter such a space if he is wearing adequate breathing apparatus in addition to a belt attached to a safety rope.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate the motive which has caused the hon. Gentleman to put down this Amendment, but I hope to be able to convince the House that we should not accept it. The provisions in the Clause have been worked out by the Home Office in consultation with their technical advisers in order to provide all suitable and necessary precautions in these confined spaces where dangerous fumes are liable to exist. It has not been considered from the point of view of cost

and I should like at once to dispel any idea of that kind. There is no question of breathing apparatus not having been provided because of the question of expense. But, on the merits, we consider the scheme proposed in the Clause to be right, having regard to certain facts, one of the most important of which is this. It is not a question of men going into one of these confined spaces for a short time to rescue somebody but of men going in to work.
It is not desirable to prescribe breathing apparatus for men who have to work in these spaces for a considerable time, unless it is really necessary, if for no better reason than that the men themselves intensely dislike having to wear the apparatus. I do not know whether the hon. Member opposite has gone into this question of breathing apparatus in any detail. I know that some hon. Members opposite are familiar with it, and they will agree that it is very disagreeable to have to wear this apparatus for any length of time. Therefore, it seems reasonable in the circumstances to have a dual system and to provide that no person shall enter a confined space unless he has a breathing apparatus, or alternatively to apply the alternatives set out in the Sub-section. Where it is not desirable that men should be forced into the use of this extremely disagreeable apparatus, the alternatives are first that all practical steps shall be taken to remove any fumes and then, a test having been taken, that any person going in shall wear a belt securely attached to a rope as provided in the Clause.
After the discussion we had in Standing Committee, we have again consulted our technical advisers, and they take the view very strongly that as a general requirement for all these cases what we have in the Bill is sufficient. But I would remind the House that there is, of course, an entirely different class of case, and it was to that which, I think, the hon. Member's mind was really opposed; that is, cases which have some additional danger in them. For one must remember that a large number of these cases are not really very dangerous once these practicable steps have been taken, and in actual practice there are not a large number of accidents in regard to them. But in particular trades there may be special circumstances, particularly where men may be using oxy-acetylene lamps and


they are inclined to eliminate oxygen out of the cylinder, in addition to that required for the lamp, for clearing the atmosphere—a dangerous practice. In regard to that we have powers. Special regulations are prescribed for these matters. As a general requirement dealing with all these cases, we feel that it is right to stand by the present Clause. We are advised that it is perfectly reasonable, and we are not exposing these men, as none of us in this House wishes to do, to any unnecessary risk.

Mr. McCorquodale: The Clause does not make it clear what should happen if, when a suitable test has been taken, it is found that fumes still exist. As I read it, no man would he allowed to go in. Would that be correct?

Mr. E. J. Williams: Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House precisely how

the test will take place, how they will ascertain if noxious fumes are present. If they are, will a man be permitted to go into the hold of a ship? He may have to go 30 or 40 paces on his hands and knees, and if something serious happened to him, how could he warn his mates and be dragged out?

Mr. Lloyd: The key to this matter is:
All practicable steps shall be taken to remove any fumes which may be present, and to prevent any ingress of fumes.
If a test is taken and there are fumes there, it becomes necessary under the' phrase which I have just read out for more practicable steps to be taken.

Question put, "That those words he there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 213.

Division No. 221.]
AYES.
[7.5 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Hollins, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Barr, J.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F. J.
Jagger, J.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sanders, W. S.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Sexton. T. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Short, A.


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silkin, L.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Silverman, S. S.


Cocks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Cove, W. G.
Lathan, G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dalton, H.
Lee, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thorne, W.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McGovern, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Milner, Major J.
Westwood, J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.
White, H. Graham


Gibbins, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Groves, T. E.
Parker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Quibell, D. J. K.





NOES.


Acland-Troyle, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Albery, Sir Irving
Everard, W. L.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fildes, Sir H.
Owen, Major G.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Patrick, C. M.


Apsley, Lord
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Peake, O.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Porritt, R. W.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Procter, Major H. A.


Balniel, Lord
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Radford, E. A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Grimston, R. V.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Guy, J. C. M.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Blair, Sir R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Boulton, W. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brass, Sir W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hepworth, J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Bull, B. B.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Higgs, W. F.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Salt, E. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Holdsworth, H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cary, R. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Selley, H. R.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Channon, H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Simmonds, O. E.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hunter, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Christie, J. A.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Keeling, E H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spens, W. P.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Latham, Sir P.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h)


Critchley, A.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Crooke, J. S.
Leckie, J. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lees-Jones, J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Levy, T.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, O.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Crossley, A. C.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Touche, G. C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lloyd, G. W.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Loftus, P. C.
Turton, R. H.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lyons, A. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dawson, Sir P.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Denville, Alfred
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Doland, G. F.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Donner, P. W.
Maitland, A.
Wells, S. R.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Markham, S. F.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Drewe, C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Duggan, H. J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Dunglass, Lord
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Elmley, Viscount
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Emery, J. F.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.



Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Mr. James Stuart and Captain




Dugdale.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I beg to move, in page 20, line 3, to leave out "any of the aforesaid requirements," and to insert
the requirements set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) in this Sub-section.

In order that we may fully appreciate exactly what this Amendment means, I think that it would be as well if we appreciated the purpose of the Clause. The Clause is devised for the purpose of taking precautions wherever dangerous


fumes may be present, and in the earlier stages of the Clause certain proposals are set out. But power is given to the chief inspector to grant a certificate in which are embodied certain exemptions. We on this side feel—and as a result of experience—that wherever these dangerous fumes may have been present, there is often a possibility of their return. You may have reasonably good safeguards for keeping them in abeyance or eliminating them for the time being, but there is oftentimes the risk of your methods for eliminating them breaking down. According to Sub-section (3), it will be within the power of the inspector to give a certificate enabling a person to obtain exemption from the provision of breathing apparatus and. furthermore, from the provision requiring the presence of persons skilled in the use of the breathing apparatus or the safety methods which are essential in these operations. Our Amendment is moved with a view to making sure that on all occasions breathing apparatus shall be available and, what is more important, that there shall be someone present skilled in safety methods.
I have said on a former occasion that we are rather concerned about the numbers of exemptions that are embodied in this Bill. We feel that this is an exemption which should not be allowed to pass, and if we cannot get a satisfactory reply from the Under-Secretary, which I hope we shall, we shall feel compelled to take this Amendment to a Division. If there are any embellishments in or around this Bill, the whole Bill does seem to be embellished with exemptions, and these are two exemptions that we shall strenuously oppose.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I quite appreciate the anxiety which besets the hon. Gentleman, but, if I may say so, the power of exemption that is wanted to be given to the inspector in regard to these matters is really only the converse of that power of additional safety requirements which we possess under Clause 59, and on occasions use, in regard to these matters. Sometimes we lay down a broad general provision to apply to all factories in which particular circumstances arise or occur, but the hon. Gentleman should be well aware, after our long discussions on this Bill in the Standing Committee, that you must very often supplement those

general standards by more severe requirements in special cases. It is inevitable that this should be so, when you come to consider the infinitely multifarious deviations and different conditions which exist in industry.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example in regard to which we should want these powers, an example connected with breathing apparatus, which was really his main point. Exceptional circumstances do exist. Sometimes a petrol storage tank is constructed in such a way that there are numerous cross stays inside the tank. The normal breathing apparatus for use in such tanks is a very disagreeable apparatus, having about 60 or 70 feet of rubber tubing attached to it for the purpose of pumping the air to the man who is wearing it, and undoubtedly these rubber tubes would come into contact with the stays to which I have referred, as hon. Members will see from the illustration which I have in my hand. Therefore, it is very inconvenient to have that type of thing operated, and, indeed, it would be very dangerous, because the tubing might get entangled round the stays and cause an air-lock. There is, of course, another breathing apparatus, which can be put on round a man, but again it would be extremely difficult for him, with this cumbersome machine on, to make his way in one of these tanks. Indeed, it might be almost impossible for him to carry out the work, and it is in that type of case that we want to have the power to give a relaxation.
The hon. Gentleman will say, and rightly so: "But are you going to waive all the provisions of the Clause and allow that man to go into a potentially dangerous place, like one of these tanks, without any protection?" No, we are not. We should propose alternative safety requirements adapted to the particular circumstances. It is far too elaborate a matter to lay down all the requirements that every different type of work would necessitate. For example, in this particular case the sort of requirement that we might make would be that the tank had been thoroughly screened off, as far as possible, in order to get rid of any petrol vapour that might be present. That might be one requirement, and in addition we might require a special supply of fresh air to be pumped into the tank while the man was at work in it. I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate


that we ask for these powers for purely practical purposes, and that we should be very careful to specify, where any relaxation was made, a proper alternative safety measure.

Mr. Kelly: Do I understand that people are allowed in these days to enter a petrol tank without a chemist having certified that it is safe for someone to go in?

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: My only objection on the last Amendment and on this is that the Under-Secretary keeps waving before us pictures of what this apparatus means and trying to show us how to fit it on. Would it not be better to have the apparatus itself here, so that we could realise the enormous difficulty that would be experienced in putting it on or wearing it? Judging by tie hon. Gentleman's actions, it must be a terrible affair, and I should like to see the thing itself instead of these pictures that he keeps waving before us. It looks very formidable, but I should be better pleased to see the actual thing.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Gibbins: I hope we shall hear something more about this relaxation of safety provisions of which the hon. Gentleman speaks. We have heard about petrol tanks. Some of the means of getting in and out of these tanks are exceedingly small. I remember one which was so constructed that an ordinary journeyman could not get in, and they had to send for a small boy to do the job. I hope, therefore, that the relaxation, if there is to be any at all, will be very carefully watched. The hon. Gentleman talked of stays, but I do not expect he knows much about these tanks, and I think he is exaggerating when he talks about the stays being a terrific danger. These stays are for strength and to prevent the collapse of the tank outwardly. They are not put in to make it like a Chinese puzzle, but they are put in with design and harmony, and I am sure that any man wearing the breathing apparatus would himself take precautions and would not turn round, like a dog chasing its own tail, and get the tube fastened round the stays. I have worked in these tanks, and made them too, and there is no reason why we should want to relax the safety provisions in regard to this kind of work. There could he no danger to a man, in

my opinion, wearing a tube of the sort described, even if it was 60 feet long. I think we had better stick to the original Clause, and allow no relaxation where there is any danger of a man being killed or badly injured.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) reminds me of something that is in existence in this country which I do not think is appreciated to the extent that it should be, and I think we should remind ourselves and all those who are concerned about it. One of the best exhibitions that I have seen is the one in Horseferry Road, in the Industrial Museum, where all these things can be seen, and the only thing that is apt to annoy me is that those who engage in industry do not realise the advantages that are to be gained from an inspection of that museum. I hope that some steps will be taken to draw the attention of all those engaged in industry, and hon. Members of this House as well, to the fact that they can see all the different kinds of apparatus which are in existence in all sections of industry, in Horseferry Road. I had the advantage of visiting the place on two or three occasions before I became a Member of this House, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Leigh reminded me of its existence.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps I might answer the question put by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) about the state of the existing law on this question. I am afraid that the answer is that there is at present no general provision in the law with regard to this matter whatever. I would remind the House that we are laying down a new and important provision which will greatly increase the safety of the men engaged in this kind of work, but we must remember that, like so many other things in this Bill where great improvements have been made, it is experimental, and that it is desirable to have, on the one hand, the power to make stronger safeguards where necessary and, on the other, the power to relax them where, in proper circumstances, it may be reasonable to do so.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I am surprised at the reply of the hon. Gentleman, because when the Act of Igor was passed we were not carrying, so far as the land services were


concerned, oil in bulk to the extent that we are to-day, but even then we were carrying oil, so far as vessels were concerned, in tanks, in bulk, and it was laid down in that Act that before a man could enter one of those tanks referred to by my hon. Friend, which had to deliver oil of any kind, a chemist must give a certificate that it was clear of fumes and safe for a man to enter. Even after the certificate had been granted some of our workmates lost their lives, probably because sufficient care had not been taken. In this provision there is no such precaution, althoug oil is carried to an even greater extent on land than it was on the sea. For the sake of life and health, I would ask that these precautions should be assured to the people engaged in this work. In the carrying on of industry and commerce our first consideration should be the life and health of the people, and the question of profit should be a small consideration in comparison.

Mr. Viant: In view of the statement made by the Under-Secretary, and the indication he has given of the spirit in which the Department intends to administer these relaxations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 28.—(Precautions with respect to explosive or inflammable dust, gas, vapour or substance.)

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 21, to leave out lines 7 to 13.
I am sorry, after the courteous way in which hon. Members have behaved in regard to the last Amendment, that I still have to appear in the role of moving another exemption. I think, however, I shall satisfy the House because it is a purely technical matter. We want to have the power for the Chief Inspector to give exemption in regard to Subsection (4) as well as Sub-section (3). Under Sub-section (4) no plant containing inflammable substance shall be subjected to any welding operation until all practical steps have been taken to remove the substance and any fumes arising therefrom, or to render them non-explosive or non-inflammable. It appears that welding operations are and may be carried on on gasholders, and on similar plant safely even if the holder is full of

gas. The difficulty we have found is that there would be an actual increase of danger if an attempt were made to empty the gasholder before the welding operations took place. It is a point which will be familiar to anyone who is trained in chemistry that the real danger arises when you get a mixture of gas and air.

Mr. Gibbins: Surely the danger arises through the possibility of penetrating the tank rather than by the mixture of gas and air outside? I have done some electrical welding, and if the tank has worn thin, the moment you strike a hammer on to it there is a danger of it penetrating the tank and allowing the gas to come outside and meeting the spark created by the electrical contact.

Mr. Lloyd: I am l0th to follow the hon. Gentleman in too much technical detail, because in these matters I must take the advice of the Home Office technical experts. I should have thought, having once been trained as a chemist, that the danger would not have been on the outside, but from air being able to go in through the fissure in the tank and creating an explosive mixture inside. I do not think, however, that we had better carry this discussion much further. I think that I might reasonably ask the House to accept the assurance of the Home Office experts that we want to perfect something that will actually cause a decrease of danger.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 27, at the end, insert:
(5) The chief inspector may by certificate grant, subject to any conditions specified in the certificate, exemption from compliance with any of the requirements of the last two foregoing subsections in any case where he is satisfied that the compliance with the requirement is unnecessary or impracticable."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

CLAUSE 29.—(Steam boilers.)

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 22, line 19, to leave out, "or of the water-tube type."
I am glad to say that I once again appear in a role of moving to strengthen the requirements of the Bill. When we were drafting the Bill we had an idea that it would not be necessary to have this particular type of alarm on a low pressure boiler, but we have since had


representations that it is desirable and is usually done. Therefore, we wish to strengthen the Bill by this Amendment.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I have been assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short), who is an ex-boiler maker, that the proposals made by the Home Office are a great improvement on what has prevailed hitherto.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 22, line 31, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert:
(3) No person shall enter or be in any steam boiler which is one of a range of two or more steam boilers unless—

(a) all inlets through which steam or hot water might otherwise enter the boiler from any other part of the range are disconnected from that part; or
(b) all valves or taps controlling such entry are closed and securely locked, and, where the boiler has a blow-off pipe in common with one or more other boilers or delivering into a common blow-off vessel or sump, the blow-off valve or tap on each such boiler is so constructed that it can only he opened by a key which cannot be removed until the valve or tap is closed and is the only key in use for that set of blow-off valves or taps."
This, again, is a concession to a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Brooke). Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will remember the technical point about the blow-off pipes and the provision of a special type of key which can only be abstracted from the lock when the valve is closed, and that there should be only one key for a set of blow-off valves or taps. We have been into the point since, and we propose to strengthen the Bill in the manner we suggest.

Amendment agreed to.

7.38 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 23, line 4, at the end, to insert:
Provided that, in the case of any range of boilers used at the date of the passing of this Act in a process requiring a continuous supply of steam, any stop-valve on the range which cannot be isolated from steam under pressure need only be examined so far as is practicable without such isolation, but this proviso shall cease to have effect as soon as a reasonable opportunity arises for installing devices to enable the valve to be so isolated and, in any case, at the expiration of a period of three years from the passing of this Act

Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will recall that there was considerable discussion with regard to the precautions that should be adopted in regard to ranges of boilers and the stop valves in use on them when the boilers have to be in continuous use. Certain undertakings were given in Committee, and it is as a result of an examination by the Department that this proviso has been drafted. The Amendment is drawn, I believe, in exact fulfilment of the general sense of the Committee upstairs.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Gibbins: Will the Lord Advocate say what he would term, "a reasonable opportunity"? If steam is required for half-a-dozen boilers working together a valve might not show an actual defect, but if under continuous working it goes, there will be a serious accident. The practice is usually to knock off one or two boilers and examine them while the other four are working. In that case the two that are knocked off can be isolated. Where that cannot be done, however, the Amendment says that an external examination will pass muster. I think that the Bill ought to lay down a specified time and not allow the valves to continue working indefinitely with only an external examination. A period of three years is allowed in the Amendment, but that is too long. When the Bill comes into operation you may have a boiler which has been going for some time, and if it is three years before it is isolated for a proper examination, a serious accident may occur.

The Lord Advocate: There is an overriding time limit of three years, and we are advised that that is a proper time limit. If, however, before that period expires the chance arises of putting the whole range of boilers out of action, advantage must be taken of the opportunity to instal the proper devices to isolate the valves. I can only say that our technical advisers think that three years is a proper period, but as soon as the chance arises of putting the range of boilers out of action, the three years' limit will not be applicable.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: Speaking as a practical person, it seems to me that there should be no necessity for the period of three years being in the Amendment.


That will give scope for negligent people who do not want to be troubled or do not want to have a boiler out of action and want to keep their expenditure to the lowest level, to leave the valves as they are to the end of the period of three years. Everyone knows that steam valves and other valves are very liable to be worn away with great rapidity. It is a question of the type of chemical which is passing through them. I have known cases where even new valves have had to be renovated at the end of three months. If the Lord Advocate could cut out reference to three years and leave it "as soon as a reasonable opportunity arises" it will be a greater safeguard.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I want to express some surprise that this type of matter is in the Bill at all. This sort of technical stuff should not find a place in an Act of Parliament, but should be the subject of regulations made under the Act. Circumstances change and the design of boilers is constantly undergoing change, yet here we are putting all sorts of technical stuff in an Act of Parliament, and it may be 30 years before we have another such Measure. I contrast what has been quite properly done from time to time in the regulations in connection with road transport, in which the Minister is able to prescribe factors affecting design of vehicles from the point of view of safety. It is amazing that technical stuff should be put in an Act, instead of power being taken by the Secretary of State to make regulations with the knowledge that he can conveniently alter them from time to time when changing technical circumstances show that it is necessary to make an alteration in the regulations. I am afraid it is too late to press this protest any further, but I must express great surprise at the procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

7.45 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 23, line 5, to leave out "The person making."
This Amendment ought to be considered in conjunction with the four Amendments which immediately follow it. The Clause requires that the examination of a boiler shall be made in two stages, once when the boiler is under pressure and once when it is cold. As the Clause was drafted it

required that the same person should carry out both examinations, although that was not intended, and the sole purpose of these five Amendments is to make it clear that the two parts of the examination may be carried out by different men, because we are advised that there is no objection to that course and it is only common sense to allow it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 23, line 7, leave out "first examine," and insert "consist, in the first place, of an examination of."

In line 9, leave out "then," and insert "secondly."

In line 10, leave out "again examine it," and insert "of an examination."

In line 11, after "pressure," insert:
and the two parts of the examination may be carried out by different persons."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 34.—(Means of escape in case of fire.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 30, line 21, after "employed," to insert:
in the factory as a whole and, if the council think fit, in any specified part thereof.
This Clause deals with the means of escape in case of fire, and this Amendment and several others which we propose to move are designed solely to strengthen the Clause. This particular Amendment is put forward to ensure that the local authority in its certificate can deal with parts of a factory which contain inflammable substances such as are not to be found in other parts of the factory.

7.50 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I think this may be the only opportunity for me to raise certain points which are contained in Amendments which are out of order. The gist of what I have to say is that district councils feel that they will not have the necessary powers which the Minister wishes them to have unless at the same time they have powers to deal with various appliances such as hydrants, mechanical extinguishers and so on. I hope that the Minister may, perhaps in another place, consider meeting certain objections which they have put forward.

Amendment agreed to.

7. 51 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 30, line 42, after "Sub-section" to insert:
shall only apply to any such factory as long as the means of escape provided therein are properly maintained and.
This is a drafting Amendment to ensure that the existing obligation does not cease to operate between the time when the new Act comes into force and a certificate is granted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 31, line 2, after "force" insert "and a certificate had been granted thereunder."

In line 20, after "employed," insert
in the factory or in any part specified in the certificate.

In line 22, after "factory," insert
or materially to increase the extent of such storage or use,"—[The Lord Advocate.]

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 31, line 34, to leave out from "may," to the end of the Sub-Section, and to insert:
when he is satisfied that no proceedings have been taken by the district council for remedying the dangerous condition, take the like action as the council might have taken and shall be entitled to recover from the district council summarily as a civil debt all such expenses as the inspector may incur in so doing and as are not recovered from any other person and are not expenses incurred in or about any unsuccessful legal proceedings.
We are dealing here with means of escape in case of fire, and this Amendment proposes to insert a provision under which a factory inspector, if he finds that a local authority has failed in its duty, may undertake the task of remedying the default and charging the local authority with the cost. I do not want to make a general criticism of local authorities in the administration of the law relating to factories, but it is all too common to find factory owners as members of local authorities, and their influence is so paramount in some cases that the law is not carried out to the extent that the Home Office would desire. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Advocate will assist us to see that the law, once it has been passed by this House, shall be implemented as this House intends it should be. In the

case of means of escape in the event of fire, I think it is even more imperative to see that the law is enforced than in connection with questions of ventilation, sanitation or other matters.

7.55 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: The Home Office are entirely in agreement with the hon. Member as to the object to be attained—that there must be no avoidable loss of time, either through the inaction of the district council or for any other reason, in putting factories into a safe condition from the point of view of fire risks. What difference there is between us is not one so much of object as of method. This Amendment proposes that the factory inspector shall take the place of the district council and himself act when he is satisfied that no proceedings have been taken by the council to remedy the dangerous conditions; in other words, the factory inspector shall supersede the local authority. To explain the alternative method which we suggest, it is necessary that I should look forward to an Amendment to which we come at line 30 on page 32.
I shall not anticipate the arguments in favour of that Amendment, but the proposal is, shortly, that in a case of real emergency the inspector shall have the right to apply direct to the courts and the courts shall have power to prohibit the use of the factory for a particular process until the necessary works have been executed. That seems to provide an even more rapid method of ensuring that the workers are not exposed to the risk of fire, because even if the methods suggested in the Amendment before us were adopted, there would be room for considerable delay through appeals and one thing and another. The House will see that we have had the same object in mind as the hon. Member, and, with all respect to him, I think we shall achieve it in a slightly better way. If he agrees, perhaps he will see his way not to press his Amendment.

Mr. Rhys Davies: After that explanation I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, only I want to say that although the Lord Advocate knows the law better than I do I think the wording of this Amendment is very much better grammar than his.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.57 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 32, line 22, to leave out "one month," and to insert "twenty-one days."
The sole purpose of this Amendment is to shorten to the narrowest limit the time for an appeal. The point is a small one, and it was discussed in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 32, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(11) If it appears to an inspector that the conditions in regard to escape in case of fire in any factory to which this section applies are so dangerous that the factory or any part thereof ought not to be used, or ought not to be used for a particular process or work, until steps have been taken to remedy the danger, he may, in lieu of serving a notice on the district council under the foregoing provisions of this section, make a complaint to a court of summary jurisdiction, and the court may, on being satisfied of the matters aforesaid, by order prohibit the use of the factory or part thereof, or its use for the particular process or work, until such works have been executed as are in the opinion of the court necessary to remedy the danger.
When any works have been executed in pursuance of such an order as aforesaid, the inspector shall give notice thereof to the district council, who shall amend any certificate in force under this section in respect of the factory, or issue a new certificate, as the case may require.
This was the sub-section to which I referred a few moments ago which confers upon the factory inspector the power to apply to the court to have a factory put out of use until certain things have been done.

Amendment agreed to.

7.58 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 32, line 39, to leave out from the beginning, to "and," in line 41, and to insert:
which is being constructed or converted for use as a factory at the date of the passing of this Act, or is constructed or so converted after that date.
This is a drafting Amendment to meet the case of a factory which was actually in process of conversion at the date of the passing of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 33, line 14, after "factory," insert "or part thereof."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 36.—(Safety provisions in case of fire.)

8.0 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 35, line 4, to leave out "of which the construction is begun," and to insert, "constructed after."
This is a drafting Amendment to fit into the general scheme of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 35, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(5) The chief inspector may by certificate grant, subject to any conditions specified in the certificate, exemption from compliance with any of the requirements of the last foregoing Sub-section in any case where he is satisfied that compliance with those requirements is inappropriate or undesirable.
The Clause makes provisions for safety in case of fire, and Sub-section (4) provides that every hoistway or liftway inside a building shall be completely enclosed with fire-resisting materials, and that all means of access to the hoist or lift shall be fitted with doors of fire-resisting materials. The Home Office experts advise us that, strange as it may sound, there are types of factory where is is undesirable to have a hoistway or liftway completely enclosed. That applies in particular to factories using explosives. There are cases where the enclosure of the hoistway or liftway would prevent the installation of the necessary plant for removing poisonous gases which may have accumulated. There is the further type of case where the left shaft or hoist-way is not capable of complete enclosure, by reason of the nature of the structure and the use to which it is put; for instance, where the goods are raised merely from one level to another level on the same floor.
Having regard to those three examples—they are only examples—of the special cases, it has been found necessary, as in many other instances, to seek that measure of elasticity which is almost inevitable when you are attempting to cover so wide a field, and to ask for power to be given to the chief inspector to grant exemption in special conditions from the general requirements of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Short: I beg to move, in page 35, line 27, at the end, to insert:


(8) Where in any room in which persons are employed in a factory explosives or inflammable material are stored or used or accumulate, effective provision for fire extinguishing, either by way of water sprinkler apparatus or portable chemical fire-extinguishers, shall be made to the satisfaction of the inspector.
This Amendment is put forward to meet a very urgent and important problem, and is self-explanatory. It will not need many words of mine to show the Lord Advocate what we have in mind. We are of opinion that, in places where explosive or inflammable materials are stored, used or allowed to accumulate, effective provision for extinguishing fire ought to be provided in the way that we suggest. I do not think it will be denied that there is a great danger to operatives and others unless some provision of this character be made, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will see his way clear to accept the Amendment.

8.6 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: The Amendment applies to factories where explosives or inflammable materials are stored or used or accumulated, and is directed to a suitable method of preventing or stopping fire in such premises. The view which was expressed upstairs when this question came up for consideration—I should say provisionally expressed because it had not been fully investigated—was that the matter could be properly dealt with only after special investigation of the various cases. Examples were given of special requirements in connection with the cellulose solution industry and the cinematograph industry. The matter has been followed up by the technical experts of the Home Office, and the result of their examination has been to convince us not only that our view was a sound one but that there are positive dangers and difficulties associated with the acceptance of the Amendment.
It appears that a water sprinkler as a fire extinguisher would, in certain factories, be positively dangerous. I have no actual knowledge of the matter, but I am advised that in certain factories a chemical extinguisher could not be used without great danger. That fact adds point to my opening remarks that it is extraordinarily difficult, as we are constantly finding out during the passage of this Bill, to deal in general terms with these matters. Looking at the question

from the opposite angle, I would point out that in many factories other methods of fire extinguishing have to be used, apart from those suggested by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short), and that they are at least equally appropriate, and probably more appropriate than those he mentions. For many purposes, sand is a very much better extinguisher. I mention these matters merely in order to justify the conclusion, which I ask the House to accept, that we cannot effectively deal with these matters by general requirements and that the appropriate course, and the perfectly safe course, is to leave this matter to be dealt with by special regulations properly adapted to the requirements of each case.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: It may be that the suggestion by the Lord Advocate will be a good way to deal with the matter, but I think my hon. Friend was justified in moving the Amendment and that some of the words in it should be inserted, even if it is necessary to put the word "sand" into the Bill. We know full well that for extinguishing oil and chemical fires sand is the best method. I hope that the Lord Advocate will not ask us to accept the method that the Home Office has adopted up to now, of issuing handbooks as to precautions against fire. Those books certainly need to be brought up to date. The matter has been raised in this House more than once. The books deal with factories, public buildings, hospitals, schools and so forth. I do not know those who are called the experts at the Home Office, but if it is to be left to them to prepare regulations which will be issued by the Home Secretary I hope they will prepare something that will make one feel safer than the precautions suggested in the handbook with regard to public buildings.
I would ask the Home Office to take into account, in this matter of fire precaution, the material which is in use. I will give an illustration of the need for precautions. We had a fire in London at a place where rubber had been stored to an enormous extent, and when the rubber became liquid there was great difficulty in escaping from it. I hope that any regulations issued will pay regard to the material which is worked upon, so that, in the early stages of any fire, the people in the factories can safely escape.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Mander: There is a great deal to be said for the view which was put forward by the Lord Advocate, that it is better to deal with varying circumstances of fire precaution by means of regulations rather than by words in the Bill. In some of the industries with which I have been associated water certainly would not be of much use. Sand and other substances would be the proper things to use. I hope that we shall adopt the course suggested, but we are entitled to ask whether it is the intention of the Home Office to deal resolutely with this question in the form of regulations so that the protection that we ultimately receive will he as effective and complete as if the words were actually embodied in the Measure.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I have examined the Clause carefully, and I would ask the Lord Advocate not to persist in putting forward small legal points which could be put forward to practically every Amendment upon the Order Paper. He referred to the fact that sand was sometimes used to extinguish fires and that it was not mentioned in the Amendment. If there are some good things in the Amendment, the absence of one practical suggestion is not a good reason for refusing to accept the Amendment. We all know that the Amendment does not deal generally with factory conditions, and that it was put there by my hon. Friend to cover a certain type of work in which explosive or inflammable materials are used. Surely the House will agree that everything possible ought to be done in the way of providing the proper extinguishers in workrooms where conditions are such that fire must be extinguished as speedily as possible. My hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment, stated that it was self-explanatory. We ask that the lines of Sub-section (7) of the Clause should be followed. It states that:
The contents of any room in which persons are employed shall he so arranged or disposed that there is a free passage-way for all persons employed in the room to a means of escape in case of fire.
The legal mind could point out that on some occasions a free passage-way giving an easy exit would be a danger, since the workers might rush out all at once and there would be a danger of panic. But

surely we have passed the stage of entering into these small legal points. I would ask the Lord Advocate to look upon this Amendment as one intended to deal with a particular dangerous phase of factory life. It suggests that water sprinklers and portable chemical fire extinguishers should be provided to the satisfaction of the inspector. We are not asking that they should be provided to the satisfaction of hon. Members opposite, or that our own special opinions should be regarded; we ask that the inspector appointed by the Government should be satisfied in this respect. I would urge the Lord Advocate to accept the Amendment, remembering that our great fire brigades in this country are not inadequate or unfit for their job because they do not carry tons of sand around with them on their fire engines. They have everything that is practicable. This Amendment is a practicable Amendment, and I ask the Lord Advocate to accept it.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I cannot understand, even accepting the view that adequate provision can be made in regulations, why the Bill should not embody an obligation on an employer to see that there are adequate facilities for protection against fire in workrooms or workshops where there are explosives or combustible materials. I do not see any particular reason for mentioning either water sprinklers or anything else; it seems to me that, if there were in the Bill a statement that there must be effective provision for fire extinguishing, it would meet the situation. I would like to get from the Home Secretary an undertaking that that will be put into the Bill, and not merely left to regulations. Regulations can be framed to meet special circumstances, but that does not lessen the importance of embodying in the Bill an obligation on the owner of a factory to see that there is proper provision for protection in workrooms or workshops where there is danger of fire, either from explosion or from the use of combustible materials.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Banfield: I think the Home Secretary will realise that we are trying to deal with a considerable danger which may arise in rooms in which explosives or inflammable materials are stored or accumulate. It must be common know-


ledge that, when a fire breaks out in any such place, it feeds on the substances around it, and it is merely common sense to say that those who employ people in a place of that kind must have something there—it does not matter what it is called—which is suitable for stopping the progress of a fire should one break out. While it may be true that things can be done by regulation, this matter is so important, in view of the seriousness of an outbreak of fire and the danger to the lives of people employed in places of this description, that it seems to me that we should be lacking somewhat in our duty if we did not lay down in the Bill itself a compulsory measure that there shall be provision, to the satisfaction of the inspector, for fire extinguishing. I entirely agree with the Lord Advocate that the Amendment is not worded as well as it might be, but it would be a pity to allow a mere defect in drafting to be made an excuse for doing nothing. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see whether it is not possible to accept the Amendment.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I desire to support the view of my colleagues on this matter, that there ought to be embodied in the Bill, particularly in regard to premises where persons are confronted daily with the danger of explosion, and consequential fire and loss of life, effective provision for dealing with that danger, and that it should not he left to regulations, which may or may not be entirely satisfactory in the circumstances of each case. I am the more jealous that the matter should be dealt with in the Bill itself when I reflect on the attitude of the Government in regard to the ventilation of premises where people are employed in the manufacture of armaments and explosives. The House will remember that, when we endeavoured to secure the laying down of an obligation to provide ventilating apparatus, of which there are unlimited types, the Under-Secretary stated that the probability was; that enough ventilation would he secured by the opening and shutting of the doors. I never heard a more futile statement, or one more out of harmony with modern practice. In my area, where there is a considerable manufacture of explosives, there is much discontent and jealousy, if I may use that term, on account of the neglect of this

problem hitherto. Explosions and loss of life have occurred, to which, I venture to think, not sufficient publicity has been given. Unless some specific undertaking is given that the suggestion of the Lord Advocate is better than that of my hon. Friends, I hope they will carry the Amendment to a Division.

8.24 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: In declining to accept this Amendment, I did not pretend to suggest that I did so, as some hon. Members seem to think, because I did not like its drafting, or on any other narrow legal ground, but because I thought, and the Home Office think, that it is impossible, however much you try, to draft an Amendment capable of attaining the object which hon. Members opposite have in view. We are driven, as one hon. Member frankly recognised, to one or other of two alternatives—either that which the Home Office suggests, of being precise and, if I may so put it, intelligible as to the exact requirements in the case of particular industries; or, on the other hand, that of taking refuge in such vague generalities as the phrase suggested by one hon. Member about the making of effective provision for fire extinguishing. Such a phrase means literally nothing in a Statute of this kind. It involves, if it means anything, criminal prosecutions for the occupiers of those factories which are not kept in compliance with the Act.
I am now speaking on my own ground, and I can assure the House that it is impossible to get convictions for infringement of a Clause of an Act of Parliament framed in such vague and indefinite terms. This House, as the guardian of the liberties of the subject, should be particularly astute never to insert in a penal Clause vague generalities of that kind, but should rather insist that the subject, be he who he may, should know exactly what it is that he should do or refrain from doing, before he can be put in the dock and tried for a penal offence. For these reasons I must adhere to my position, but I should like to make it clear, with the authority of my right hon. Friend, that it is the intention of the Home Office to revise and bring up to date, when the Bill becomes an Act, the manuals and other instructions in regard to fire prevention, and to examine with


a very careful eye the problem of making appropriate provision by means of regulation for the particular requirements of the various industries that are affected by this problem.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Short: I should like to express my dissatisfaction with the attitude of the Home Office. I make no complaint about the very lucid explanation of the Lord Advocate. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. I can only recall one Attorney who always seemed to speak with the same convincing power, and that is the present Lord Hewart. I am not tied to the words of my Amendment, and I should have liked the Lord Advocate to have found a way out for us, so that we could have had some definite phraseology in the Bill to meet the point. He has not denied the seriousness of the danger, which invariably arises. He said the Home Secretary could deal with it by way of regulation. I presume he was referring to Clause 59, but I see nothing in that Clause that refers to safety provision in case of fire, and I am by no means certain that the Home Secretary has powers wide and complete enough to deal with the point. It may be that he has those powers in some other connection, but, even if he has, we are not satisfied that these or similar words should not be in the Statute, and I am afraid we shall have to force the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Davidson: If an inspector made certain recommendations with regard to a workroom in which were stored inflammables or explosives and the employer refused to have appliances, and a fire occurred with loss of life, would not the employer be liable for criminal proceedings?

Mr. Mander: Under what Clause would these regulations be made?

The Lord Advocate: It is Clause 59 which is the source of the Secretary of State's power in the matter, because a factory containing explosives or other inflammable material would be a factory entailing risk of bodily injury to persons employed in connection therewith, and arising out of that would come the special power to make regulations covering fire protection. As regards the point put to me by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), it is impossible to answer a question as to the effect of a hypothetical Amendment to a Clause which I have not before me, but, speaking without an opportunity for consideration, I should certainly have the greatest difficulty in framing an indictment which charged a person with non-compliance with a Statute, on the one hand, and, on the other, with some particular requirement of an inspector of factories.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 187.

Division No. 222.]
AYES.
[8.31 p. m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Ede, J. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Adamson, W. M.
Edwards, Sir C. (Badwellty)
Kelly, W. T.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Ammon, C. G.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H
Kirby, B. V.


Banfield, J. W.
Gardner, B. W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Barr, J.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Lathan, G.


Batey, J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lawson, J. J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Gibbins, J.
Leach, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Lee, F.


Bevan, A.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Leonard, W.


Broad, F. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Leslie, J. R.


Bromfield, W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Logan, D. G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Lunn, W.


Buchanan, G.
Groves, T. E.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Burke, W. A.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
McEntee, V. La T.


Cape, T.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McGhee, H. G.


Cluse, W. S.
Harris, Sir P. A.
McGovern, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
MacLaren, A.


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Mander, G. le M.


Daggar, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Marshall, F.


Dalton, H.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Maxton, J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hollins, A.
Messer, F.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hopkin, D.
Milner, Major J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jagger, J.
Montague, F.


Day, H.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Dobbie, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)




Naylor, T. E.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Tinker, J. J.


Oliver, G. H.
Sanders, W. S.
Viant, S. P.


Owen, Major G.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Walkden, A. G.


Paling, W.
Sexton, T. M.
Walker, J.


Parker, J.
Shinwell, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Parkinson, J. A.
Short, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Silkin, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Pritt, D. N.
Silverman, S. S.
Westwood, J.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Simpson, F. B.
White, H. Graham


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Ridley, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Riley, S.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Ritson, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F O. (W. Brom.)
Stephen, C.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)



Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rowson, G.
Thorne, W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Everard, W. L.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Apsley, Lord
Fildes, Sir H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Assheton, R.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Peake, O.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gower, Sir R. V.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Porritt, R. W.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Grimston, R. V.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Balniel, Lord
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Procter, Major H. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Radford, E. A.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Blair, Sir R.
Guy, J. C. M.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Blaker, Sir R.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Boulton, W. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Remer, J. R.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan



Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hepworth, J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brass, Sir W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ropnor, Colonel L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Higgs, W. F.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Col, D. C. (Hexham)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bull, B. B.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Sir E, T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Salmon, Sir I.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hunter, T.
Salt, E. W.


Cary, R. A.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Selley, H. R.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Channon, H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Simmonds, O. E.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Keeling, E. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Latham, Sir P.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Spens, W. P.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leckie, J. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Cox, H. B. T.
Lewis, O.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark N.)


Critchley, A.
Little, Sir E. Graham
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crooke, J. S.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lloyd, G. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Loftus, P. C.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cross, R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Touche, G. C.


Crossley, A. C.
Lyons, A. M.
Train, Sir J.


Crowder, J. F. E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Cruddas, Col. B.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Turton, R. H.


Culverwell, C. T.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
McKie, J. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dawson, Sir P.
Maitland, A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Denville, Alfred
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Doland, G. F.
Markham, S. F.
Wells, S. R.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Drewe, C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Duggan, H. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Dunglass, Lord
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)



Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Mr. James Stuart and Major Sir


Emery, S. F.
Nall, Sir J.
George Davies.

CLAUSE 42.—(Washing facilities.)

8.40 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I do not move the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper to leave out Clause 42, which was consequential upon the passing of the new Clause about washing facilities. It is probably better that we should leave this Clause in the Bill until the new Clause comes back to us from another place.

CLAUSE 43.—(Accommodation for clothing.)

Sir S. Hoare: I beg to move, in page 37, line 39, to leave out the Clause.
The House will remember that I proposed an alternative Clause which was accepted by the House.

Mr. E. Smith: May I ask a few questions of the Home Secretary before we dispose of this Clause? Yesterday, as the result of criticism from both sides of the House, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to agree to the withdrawal of his proposals and to reconsider the whole question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must point out that this Amendment is purely consequential. The Amendment to leave out Clause 42 was not moved, and it is therefore not before the House at the moment. This matter cannot be raised because there is no question before the House. To leave out Clause 43 is purely a consequential Amendment upon the new Clause which the House has accepted.

Mr. E. Smith: May I be permitted to ask the Home Secretary whether the new Clause which he proposes to consider will be placed on the Order Paper before it goes to another place?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a matter which is now before the House, and it is entirely out of order.

Mr. Batey: Surely, some reason should be given by the Home Secretary for moving to leave out Clause 43.

Sir S. Hoare: I have just given it. Yesterday I moved as a new Clause an alternative to Clause 43 about the accommodation of cloakrooms, and clothing and so on. The House unanimously accepted the new Clause, and, that being so, it is now necessary for me to move the deletion of this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 45.—(First-aid.)

8.43 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I beg to move, in page 38, line 15, to leave out "If mechanical power is used in a factory."
I understand that in the discussions in the Standing Committee it was urged that there should be included within the scope of the Bill both kinds of factories, namely, factories where mechanical power is used and workshops where it is not used. The Amendment is moved in response to what, I think, was the general view of the Standing Committee. As the House will see, it extends the scope of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir S. Hoare: I beg to move, in page 38, line 32, after "shall," to insert:
in the case of a factory where more than fifty persons are employed, be trained in first-aid treatment, and the person in charge shall.
Here, again, this is the result of the discussions in the Standing Committee, where it was pointed out that in the larger factories, namely, those employing 50 persons or upwards, the man or woman in charge of the first-aid equipment ought to be a competent person. I think that this Amendment meets with the general view of the Standing Committee, and I, therefore, ask the House to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 46.—(Welfare Regulations.)

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 39, line 36, to leave out from "made" to "but," in line 38.
The object of the Amendment is to remove the restriction on the setting up of bodies of joint control in cases where the workers make some contribution. That may have been the practice in the past, but I cannot help thinking that it is no longer desirable, because there are a great many things, such as arrangements for mess rooms, the supply of drinking water, the storing and drying of clothes, washing arrangements, etc., towards which the employés do not make a direct contribution, but where their association in the arrangements for management is eminently desirable. There will be a definite restriction upon that if we leave the Clause as it stands in the Bill. We have an opportunity here of doing a bit


of very useful practical work in the development and cultivation of that spirit of good will and co-operation which is so important inside the works. Unless the employers understand the desires of the workpeople in connection with the points I have mentioned, they will not make effective arrangements, and unless the workpeople know precisely why the various arrangements are being made and know that they are being consulted and that their wishes are being taken into consideration, they will not be as satisfied as otherwise they would be. Therefore, I hope that this small Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Messer: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: This point was raised in the Standing Committee, and we have considered it and still feel that it is unreasonable to require that the employés shall be associated in the management of these arrangements unless some contribution has been made by them. Where a contribution has been made by the workers it is reasonable that there should be a joint committee, but not necessarily in other cases. It must be clearly understood that these extra provisions are rather outside the welfare provisions which are required by the Secretary of State. For example, there is a great difference between these extra arrangements and the safety first work, where recognition is very important and a general spirit of cooperation is necessary; but in regard to the extra welfare arrangements to which the employés do not contribute, it is the appropriate thing for the employer who has himself paid for them to be the sole manager. As a matter of general practice I do not think that a great deal of trouble arises, and I do not think that there is much demand in industry itself for the exception to be made which is sought in the Amendment.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I am going to appeal to the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary not to accept this Amendment. I could place full confidence in the carrying out of matters of this kind if they were going to be administered by men like the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), knowing the background of his experience and the

background of the policy that he and those associated with him have pursued, but if the Amendment were accepted it would give scope to employers generally to an extent that would be very detrimental to those employed in industry. Let me give one example of the way that such an Amendment would work. Hon. Members who represent mining constituencies and others who have been associated with them have had an instance during the past few months in relation to circumstances which nearly led to a serious national stoppage. I have been provided by one of my hon. Friends with a large number of pay tickets for that particular area, and they show the danger of a proposal of this character. On those pay tickets it was common for men to have stopped out of their earnings anything from 15s. to 30s. a week. If a proposal of this character were inserted in the Factories Bill it would give opportunities for other employers who desire to carry on in that way to further their objects of undermining trade unionism, and they would have this excuse for doing it.

Mr. Mander: The hon. Member has been good enough to refer to me and I should like to say that I do not think he has understood the object of the Amendment. The Amendment would not make it necessary for the workers to pay any contribution. Quite the contrary. It would give them some extra power of control, in a sense, of other people's money. I do not think that on these grounds there can be any objection to it.

Mr. Smith: The Clause says:
but no contribution shall be required from the persons employed in any factory, except for the purpose of providing additional or special benefits which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, could not reasonably be required to be provided by the employer alone.
In those words are the reasons why I am taking up this attitude. The relationship that has been developed between employers and employed is that the employers are represented in their big industrial organisations and the workpeople are also represented in their organisations, and we ought to be on our guard against agreeing to anything which might affect that relationship. We know of another country where the relationships between employers and employed are not anything like so good as they are in this country,


and in that country proposals of this character have been carried out and have had a very detrimental effect on the work-people.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I rise to support the Amendment, with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) who, I know, has only one thing at heart, and that is the interests of the workers in the factories. I would point out that he is under a misapprehension with regard to the effect of the Amendment. The Amendment affects the beginning of the Clause and would take away from the workers in any factory any feeling that a contribution was necessary in order that they might have some of those amenities which the employer might wish them to have. In many industries—I am most conversant with the newspaper factories—they have dining rooms of the best type for the employés. In the great Co-operative movement there are some of the finest dining rooms for employés that are to be found in the country, and in those dining rooms and the amenities that go with them in connection with many factories, we find nice tables, with covers, and cutlery as good as we get in the House of Commons dining rooms. These amenities are not contributed to by the workers from their pay books.
The good employer recognises that the giving of these amenities benefits not only his employés but himself. I hope the Home Office will not be dour and determined in their attitude against the Amendment, which will conduce to a better understanding between employer and employed. Undoubtedly the Amendment will mean that in some industries the employer will give the workers some decent welfare conditions without asking for a contribution from them. The Under-Secretary said that he could not accept the Amendment although it would make very little difference to the Clause. He almost hinted that there was something underlying the Amendment. All hon. Members have tried to improve the Bill, to make it more practical and of more benefit for the employés, and I hope the Home Office will not persist in its present attitude, but will accept the Amendment.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I should like to ask the Home Secretary to reconsider his decision. This is a very simple proposal.

The Clause says that employés shall be associated in the welfare arrangements of the factory only if they are required to contribute towards the cost. Where employés do not contribute the Clause will result, even in circumstances where they are already associated in the welfare arrangements, in the employer saying that they do not contribute and, therefore, they have no right, expressed or implied, to be associated with the welfare arrangements. There are many factories where the employés are associated in these arrangements, but where they do not make any contribution towards the cost. Unless the Home Secretary will consider this proposal, which I think is most reasonable and moderate, we shall find a tendency on the part of employers to deprive their employés of any co-operation on the ground that they are not contributing to the cost.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I am surprised that the Home Office should object to the Amendment. They are laying down the principle that unless a man contributes some weekly payment out of his wages he shall not take any part in the management of these welfare schemes, not even in the conduct of a dining room and mess room, which is often left almost entirely to the men and women employed in the factory. The premises are found and all that is needed for the dining room is provided, but the management of it is left entirely in the hands of the workpeople. The Home Office says that unless they are contributing to the cost they must not have any hand in the management or conduct. May I point out that a contribution is paid by these people? Welfare schemes are permitted by the Treasury to escape a certain amount of tax—I do not know the amount, but an allowance is made for the money expended and it comes out of the costs of production. The working people are paying all the time, but still the Home Office says that these words must remain in, in any case where a proportion of the cost is borne by the people employed. We have had no reason given why these words should be left in. I hope it is a lack of consideration, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into the matter again and get some idea of how industry and commerce is carried on, and particularly of the work of these welfare associations.

9 p.m.

Mr. Banfield: I think that far too much is being made of this matter by the Under-Secretary in opposing the Amendment. I have always thought that anything which tended even in a small way to bring employers and workpeople together in some consultative capacity, in which they can speak to one another about things connected with the factory, like welfare work, is all to the good; not that the workpeople should have an overriding voice in the management, but rather that they should get the feeling that they are working with their employer for the common good of the factory. I am not afraid of anything dreadful happening if we pass the Amendment. On the other hand, I am satisfied that a peat deal of the friction and discontent in factories is often caused because the workpeople feel that they are treated as cogs in a machine and not as human beings. This may be a small matter, but it is in its way rather important. It is surprising how it is the little things which make the wheels go round smoothly; it is not always the big things. In my own experience as a baker, if I had an employer who looked upon me as something more than a profit-making machine, but as an essential part of the business, and he was ready to consult me on various things, it made life very happy.
Cannot we have this little concession? It will not make much difference. It will not upset the Department; they will still manage to get on very well, but it would give effect to what is a very important aspect of our industrial arrangements. The one desire of people who speak for the workers is that employers should look upon theft workpeople as something more than money-making machines. Here we have an opportunity of bringing that about in a small way. In the case of mess rooms, for instance, employers have often said to me, "We have provided a mess-room and the men use it, but they leave it in a bad state, taking no care at all." In such cases the employers should call the men together and say, "We want the place kept tidy, but we do not want to interfere. Three or four of you will be responsible for its being kept tidy." The job would then be done. This matter is a small one, but in its way it is important, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider it.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I would like to ask the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary to reconsider this matter. I have visited many factories, and the one thing which all employers are anxious to show a Socialist is the amenities that they supply. They have told me that the workmen, although they do not contribute directly towards the provision of these amenities, are very proud of them and enjoy them.

Mr. E. Smith: Why not start a company union?

Mr. Lansbury: My hon. Friend must not think that it is only in the Potteries that there is trade unionism. In the district from which I come, most of the people have to earn their living in the workshops, and they work in very big workshops. Many of them are members of the union of which I am a trustee. In one of the biggest factories, nearly every employé is a member of a union. There they have all sorts of amenities, including mess rooms, which the workpeople are very glad to use and to take care of. I think it is really pedantry to want to retain the words in this Clause, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid there is some misunderstanding on this matter. There is nothing in the Clause which would restrict voluntary committees being let up by employers. If the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), in one of his conversations with employers, were to suggest that they should set up a joint committee, there would be nothing in this Clause to prevent it. In fact we want to see that take place. It is merely a question of whether we should take an absolute power to compel the setting up of these committees. I think the House as a whole will agree that to compel the setting up of these committees would not be the best way of bringing about that good feeling between employers and employés which we all desire. I cannot give any pledge this evening, but we will look into this matter very carefully.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I disagree with many of my colleagues about this Clause, and I am inclined to support the Government and to ask them not to agree to the Amendment. It seems to me that the Clause is


really in the interests of the workmen. In the first place, it says that where there are welfare arrangements and the workmen are asked to contribute towards them, it shall be a condition that they shall have a share in the management. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Mander: It is all right. We are not trying to prevent that, but are trying to extend it still further so that the workers shall have a share in the management whether they contribute or not.

Mr. Batey: If I understand the Amendment correctly, it would delete certain words which would mean that the workmen would not contribute and would therefore not have any share in the management.

Mr. Mander: Just the opposite.

Mr. Batey: What I want is that where there are welfare arrangements, the workmen should have a voice in the management.

Mr. Messer: That is what the Amendment would bring about.

Mr. Batey: The second thing that the Clause says is that no contribution shall be required from the persons employed in any factory except where special benefits are given. If a contribution is demanded from the workmen, why not insist upon special benefits being given? This Clause is really in the interests of the workmen, and it would be better if it were left as it is.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Mender: In view of the very sympathetic reply given by the Under-Secretary, and if he will promise to look into the matter with a view to incorporating something of this kind, perhaps in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 52.—(Underground rooms.)

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Short: I beg to move, in page 44, line 4, to leave out from "State)" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
unless it is certified by the inspector for the district to be suitable for the purpose on hygienic grounds, and in particular as regards construction, light, ventilation, and adequate means of escape in case of fire.

We attach considerable importance to this Amendment, and we are entirely dissatisfied with the phraseology of the Clause as it stands, particularly the words which I am moving to leave out. The Clause provides that:
No work shall be carried on in any underground room (not being an underground room used only for the purpose of storage or for some purpose excepted by order of the Secretary of State) which is certified by the inspector for the district to he unsuitable.…
The Amendment which I am moving would provide that no work shall be carried on in any underground room unless it is certified by the inspector for the district to be suitable. That is a very different matter. It will be seen, therefore, that the Amendment which I propose involves an important change. We desire that the inspector should certify that the room is suitable. We want a positive assertion on the part of the inspector to that effect. There is a proviso in the Clause which enables an inspector, where he certifies any room which is in actual use as unsuitable, to suspend the operation of the certificate. We do not think that there should be any proviso of that character. If underground rooms are to be used at all they ought to be suitable on hygienic grounds and as regards construction, light, ventilation and the provision of adequate fire escapes. The Amendment is a sensible and practical one, and should command the support of the House, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will indicate that he proposes to accept it.

9.17 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: The House ought to take into account certain factors connected with this question before coming to a decision on the Amendment, and if they do so I think they will arrive at the general conclusion that the Amendment is not necessary. The first factor which I ask hon. Members to take into account is the great diversity of these underground rooms with which we are dealing. If one does not realise that factor, one is rather tempted to think that these rooms are nothing but cellars or something very like cellars, whereas many of the rooms which come within the description "underground rooms" are, my advisers tell me, by no means bad as far as accommodation is concerned. That being so, the second factor which I ask the House to take into account is that there will be a great


deal of urgent work to be undertaken by the inspectors when this Measure becomes law, and we are very anxious to avoid wasting any time upon work which is not of the first urgency.
We are genuinely afraid—and this view is supported by my expert advisers—that if the inspectors have to certify every one of the very large number of these underground rooms, although they know that a good many of them reach a comparatively high standard of accommodation, their time will be so much taken up by that duty that they will not have the opportunity of doing work which is perhaps of a more urgent character. Since the Debates in the Standing Committee and as a result of them, we have had a special inquiry made into the question of these rooms, and on the whole the report concerning them is not unsatisfactory. It shows, as I say that in a good many cases the standard is by no means bad. That confirms me in the view that the best course to adopt is not to insist upon a general all-round certification, but for the inspectors to receive particulars of the rooms, and, having received those particulars, to insist upon new certificates only where the conditions seem to be bad. That is the proposal which we make as regards existing rooms.
As far as new rooms are concerned, there, I think, we can adopt a more stringent method. As regards rooms taken into use for the first time after the commencement of the Act we can prohibit the use of any such room, without the consent in writing of the district inspector, for the purpose of any process, prescribed by order of the Secretary of State, being a hot or wet process, or a process of a dusty character, or liable to give rise to gas or fumes. I think on the whole that is the best way to deal with the problem. It is not that we wish unsuitable rooms to continue in use. We wish to concentrate on rooms about which we have particulars showing that they are not suitable, instead of starting a general new certification of the great number of such rooms, many of which do not require it. In view of those circumstances, I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Barr: The House will have received with some fractional measure of satisfaction the last part of the right hon. Gen-

tleman's statement, but I am bound to say I think the reasons which he adduced for not accepting the Amendment, tell in its favour rather than against it. He spoke of the great number and diversity of these underground workplaces. Surely that is a reason why a more uniform standard should be applied to them, and why we should approach this problem, not merely from the negative side, but, as my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment said, from the positive side. A room should be certified definitely as a fit and proper place for the carrying on of the particular work which it is proposed to do in it. The Minister said he did not desire that the inspectors should waste their time in certifying all these rooms but we have to look at the waste of life and of strength which may take place among people compelled to work in such surroundings. All of us who have been in places of this kind know the stifling atmosphere which prevails in them and the many other factors in them which are injurious to health and I suggest that, so far from being a waste of time, it would be well-spent time, if the inspectors, acting not on hearsay but on definite evidence, certified in each case positively that the place was suited for the kind of work proposed to be carried on in it. This would be a really substantial service, well warranting the expenditure of time on the part of the inspector.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I was sorry, indeed, to hear that the Home Secretary is not prepared to accept this Amendment. Up to now we have had difficulty with regard to reports being made as to unsuitable premises. People employed in them have been afraid to report on them. The need for some one to report before any investigation is made will continue. The Home Secretary need not trouble about the new places, because the municipal bodies, particularly where labour has control, will take care that new buildings are so constructed that people will not have to be employed underground as they are at present. I was interested to hear the Home Secretary say that investigations had taken place. But he stopped short there, and gave us no indication as to what part of the country was dealt with. He did not tell us whether workshops or factories were investigated, or


whether they were used for light industrial purposes or for commercial purposes.
He might have said a little more with regard to lighting. He referred to the fact that many of these places were not so bad. One would like to know whether these people have to work in artificial light throughout the day. If they do, then the premises they work in are unsatisfactory. Surely the example which we had in London in 1928 when the river overflowed and several people were drowned within a few yards of this building—drowned in underground rooms, some of which were used as workrooms—ought to be enough to rouse any Government to see that there is no repetition of that. We were told that the inspectors are needed for other work. The Home Secretary earlier this evening was quite prepared to utilise his inspectorate in an examination of all the new machines and the existing machines to see which should be specified as dangerous, and if he is prepared to utilise his inspectors for that purpose I would ask him to make use of them to prevent the injury which ns done to our people by working underground. The Clause says that an underground room means any room half of which is below ground. One would think that we were so restricted that we were compelled to put our people below ground, and that there was not the opportunity of providing accommodation for them to work above ground level.
I appeal to the Home Secretary to reconsider this matter. Surely the construction of buildings is not so difficult that people engaged in industry and commerce must work in artificial light all day. Nowadays with many people engaged in light industrial undertakings where they use inflammable material, and where if fire happens to occur near the entrance or exit there is a panic, it does not make one feel very happy to think of young people particularly who may be engaged underground. We are entitled on behalf of the people, for their safety and health, to say that the place where they work shall be quite satisfactory in the matter of construction, light, ventilation and adequate means of escape in case of fire, and it is the duty of the Home Office to protect people against having to work under unsuitable conditions

9.30 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: When I listen to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, I feel more convinced than ever that they have not read the Clause. The Clause is perfectly straightforward. It says:
No work shall be carried on in any underground room…which is certified by the inspector for the district to be unsuitable for the purpose as regards construction, light or ventilation, or on any hygienic ground, or on the ground that adequate means of escape in case of fire are not provided…
Clauses 4 and 5 deal with ventilation and lighting, and we have had the assurance of the Home Secretary this evening. We had the assurance of the Under-Secretary in Committee when he said that a comprehensive inquiry has shown that conditions are much better than might have been anticipated, and that an improvement has taken place. This legislation is introducing further regulations as regards lighting and ventilation which will bring still further improvements. There are a great many reasons why what are misnamed underground workshops should be used. Workshops which are 50 per cent. below the ground produce an evenness of temperature which is very necessary in many processes. I may get jeers from the other side, but it is common sense. There are other reasons, too, as, for example, heavy machinery. Rotary printing machines must be bedded on a firm foundation, which can be found only when you have got below the looser surface of the ground. Hitherto a great many workshops have never come under factory legislation. These workshops will now come under this Bill when it becomes law, and they will be forced to carry out the provisions as to lighting and ventilation laid down in this Bill, and if hon. Members will study this Bill, realising these conditions, they will realise that they are really making quite a false impression in the country. I do hope that the Home Secretary will resist this Amendment.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Mander: It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member has said, that this Clause represents a considerable advance on any legislation which has existed in the past, and we are grateful for that. But I would like it to be put the other way round, because it means that under the present


law a great many underground workshops are going to wait a long time, may be years, before any inspection takes place. I am sure that there is not a Member who would not desire that a certificate in the terms of this Amendment should be given to every workshop, and the sooner that happens the better. The only objection that the Home Secretary really made to it was on the question of staff. A very simple way out is to appoint more inspectors. He is going to appoint a number of fresh inspectors, and I think the best way is to add to that number. If that is the only objection, let us add as many as are necessary to the highly competent and efficient staff of the Home Office, and we shall be satisfied in regard to these places some years before the time that would otherwise be the case.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: I think everyone wishes to see the closing of unsuitable rooms as quickly as possible, and the only difference between us is as to the method by which it should be done. I am glad to hear from the Government that they are resisting this Amendment from the Opposition benches, because I think the Government's method will certainly ensure that unsuitable rooms are closed more quickly than the method proposed by the Opposition. It is a matter of commonsense. These unsuitable rooms are largely known to the Government's factory inspectors, and if they are not known, the inspectors in the past have not been doing their job properly. The factory inspectors can get after those unsuitable rooms straight away, but if the occupiers of the tens of thousands of underground rooms in this country have all to apply for certificates, it will probably take years before the last of them have been inspected by the inspectors and before the full provisions of this Clause can operate. Therefore, I estimate that at least six to 12 months will be gained by the Government's proposals in the shutting of unsuitable rooms as against the proposals in the Amendment.
Another point that I think is of importance, although it is possibly a minor one, is this: Under the Government's proposals once a factory inspector has given his certificate, and unless that certificate is effectively opposed in the courts, that room is closed for ever, but under the proposals from the Opposition what may

happen? A certificate may be given by an inspector that a room is suitable; and that certificate may be given on possibly rather insufficient grounds. After a little experience, it may be that the room is not suitable, that the inspector has been too free with his certificate, and yet, once the employer has got his certificate that the room is suitable, it will be very difficult to close that room afterwards, even if it ought to be closed in the opinion of hon. Members of this House. I think that is common sense.
This is not a party question. We are all anxious to see these places closed, and there is not one decent employer in this country who wishes to work his people in unsuitable surroundings. The Home Office are not in this matter impressed in any way with the cost of alterations or anything of the sort. We all wish to close unsuitable rooms on the first possible opportunity, and I suggest, in all sincerity, that the proposals made in this Clause are a great advance on anything which has been done in factory legislation before. We are all proud in helping to bring about this improvement, and I am sure that these are the best possible methods for getting rid as quickly as possible of unsuitable underground rooms, which we all deplore.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Banfield: I am very much afraid that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale), who has just spoken, is looking at the matter from the point of view of the printing trade. If every trade was as well organised on both sides as is the printing trade, we should have no need for this Clause at all. I was rather disappointed with the Home Secretary when he said that after all many of these places are not so had. I speak with a very considerable amount of experience of underground places, and I hope to have an opportunity to-night to say something about underground bakehouses, but I would impress on every hon. Member in this House this fundamental truth, that there is no underground room which is in any respect comparable with a room that is above ground. All underground rooms are considerably worse than workrooms above ground, and the important point about this matter is that we are bringing under this Bill thousands of workshops which hitherto have not been brought under factory legislation.
I spoke about this matter in Committee because I felt very strongly about it. It must be within the knowledge of most Members of this House that many of the worst sweated trades in our large towns and cities are carried on in underground rooms, particularly in London, and the worst type of sweating, carried on by the worst type of employer, in the worst parts of our great towns and cities, is carried on in underground rooms. I come down to this House on a bus or a tram, and I can see from the top of the vehicle down in miserable basement places—dark, dingy, damp—little girls sitting there sewing, sewing, sewing, every day when I come to this House. That is not the sort of places in which young people should be compelled to work, and, with all due respect to the Home Secretary, I am satisfied that the time has come when these places should be overhauled and thoroughly inspected and when certificates should be issued as to whether or not they are suitable as workrooms.
The hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen) made a speech which was enough to make the angels weep, the sort of speech which is the absolute despair of all decent thinking people, both employers and workmen, who want to see industry carried on under decent conditions. Why should this House always be so anxious to protect the worst type of employer? That is what it amounts to. The good employer never has any fear about regulations of this kind; he does his duty, not because he is compelled to do it, but because, as a Christian and a decent man, he wants to do the right thing by those whom he employs, but here we are always so anxious, when anyone wants to bring the worst employer into line, to say, "Oh, well, after all, perhaps it is not so bad, and these poor fellows might lose a bit if we are too hard on them." It is time that this House was hard on these people. I call places of this kind rat shops. They are not fit to be used for any purpose whatsoever, but we have allowed them to be used all these years.
Now, for the first time, we are endeavouring to do something to bring them into line, and surely now is the time to do it. You have 12 months before the Bill comes into operation, and your inspectors can make a good many inquiries before then, so far as this kind of thing

is concerned. There is no need for them to go to the new factories. The inspectors know where the conditions are decent, but it must be in the knowledge of any inspector who does his job—and they do their job; there is no better batch of civil servants than the inspectors of the Home Office—where the conditions are not decent, and I say that it will be comparatively easy to get this information and to issue these certificates. It would be very nice if we could start with a clean sheet in this respect. Some of us have very bad consciences, and I ask myself sometimes, "What am I doing to make life a bit better for the people I have left behind me?" Even Conservative Members returned by the votes of working men and women have a responsibility in this matter as well as I have, but we get hon. Members like the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) making a speech which, after all, is in defence of the worst type of employers.

Mr. McCorquodale: My argument was directed solely to show that under the scheme of the Clause, these rat shops, as the hon. Member calls them, will be closed.

Mr. Banfield: I am sure that, on consideration, my hon. Friend will say, "After all, Banfield knows more about this question and perhaps the Government are not right." They are not always right. I hope that they are open to be convinced. The Home Secretary told me yesterday in regard to another matter that he had an open mind, and I hope that he has an open mind on this matter. This is really an important Amendment. It will make all the difference as to whether this Clause will really do some good to people who are unable to protect themselves, because the workers in the majority of these places are unorganised, consisting as they do of women and young persons. This House owes a duty to people of this kind to protect them and to see that, as many of them have to work long hours at miserable wages, they shall have fresh air and decent surroundings.

9.48 p.m.

Miss Ward: It would he interesting to the House if my right hon. Friend could give us some indication how the machinery would operate in order to enforce the provisions of this Clause. I would like to know whether there is in


the possession of the Home Office a list of unsuitable rooms which are being used for workshops and for carrying on certain kinds of business, and whether, on the passing of the Bill, the inspectors will take immediate action to close them. I would also like to know whether the Home Office inspectors follow the practice of the mines inspectors and take notice of anonymous communications. For instance, we were told during the Debate on the Gresford Report that the mines inspectors follow up any anonymous complaints which may be sent to them with regard to conditions underground and the non-carrying out of regulations. Is that practice followed by the Home Office inspectors? It seems to me a matter of some importance, particularly, as the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) has just pointed out, as a great many of the workers in underground places are not in workers' organisations. If my hon. Friend could give us information on these points, it would be helpful to the House in coming to a decision.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: The difference between the Amendment and the Clause is that under the Clause the Government say that work can be carried on in an underground factory unless the inspector refuses to give a certificate. The Amendment says that the inspector must give a certificate before work can be carried on. The Home Secretary's argument was the strongest argument for the Amendment. His first defence was that some of these under-ground places are not so bad. That, however, is true about everything. It is true about criminals, but I am certain that the Lord Advocate, if he were conducting a case in the courts, would not accept as a defence, "He was not quite so bad." That defence of the Home Secretary amounted to nothing. His other defence was that the Amendment would mean a large increase in the work of the inspectors and in the inspectorate. That was the strongest argument for the Amendment, because, until I heard this Debate, I did not think there were so many of these places that it would need a great increase of inspectors to deal with them. I thought that the places were so few that the inspectors could do this additional work quite easily. This problem is not much different from the housing

problem. We are dealing with the slums of the factories. Every housing reformer knows that when we wanted to tackle the housing problem the argument was the same as that of the Home Secretary, that some of the slums were not so bad. It is true that some slums are not so bad as others, but that is not a reason for not sweeping them away as quickly as possible.
We are now dealing with the slum factory in which the workers are usually those who are least able to defend themselves. All that the Amendment asks is that the inspector should give a certificate before such a factory can be carried on. I expected the Home Secretary to say that 12 months was not sufficient time in which to sweep away these places. I would have replied that 12 months is ample. The hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen) said there are some of these places better than some above ground. I wondered when I heard that what some of the places above ground were like. Nobody who has a knowledge of factory life and had a choice would ever choose an underground workshop.
There are girls working on millinery and dressmaking underground. No woman would willingly choose to work underground in preference to working above ground. In spite of what has been said, taking them as a whole underground factories are nothing like as good as those above ground; but if they are good then, under the Labour party's Amendment, they will get a certificate. What will every employer do who has a factory which he is boasting about? The minute this Bill becomes law he will telephone the factory inspector and ask, "Please come at once and give me a certificate," and within a day, or a week, or a month, he will get his certificate. As to the other type of factory, which is frequently in an out-of-the-way district, we know from our experience with trade boards what is likely to happen with such a factory. I represent a division where a great many of the workers are engaged in trades which come under trade board legislation, and it is frequently a matter of years before we can get at some of the employers in those trades, and by the time we do get at them the amount which is owing to their employés is often so large that we have to agree to accept a


smaller sum, because to force payment of the full amount would mean bankruptcy.
The Amendment before us is making a contribution of a positive kind to the Bill, whereas the Government's proposal is a mere negation. It may operate, or it may not operate, everything depending on the type of inspector and the number of inspectors and a hundred and one qualifying conditions. In this age of welfare committees, sports grounds and all that kind of thing, I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. Member opposite. We spent a whole day debating the keep-fit movement and the need for giving young people opportunities for tennis and the open-air life. If we improved factory conditions that would be the best contribution we could make to keeping them fit, and would dispense with a great deal of the need for the keep-fit campaign. Day after day we were told in Committee "Give us constructive ideas." Here is a constructive idea; it does not wreck the Bill but strengthens it. I hope the Home Secretary will agree that it is a constructive proposal such as will do credit to the Bill, and if he accepts it I am certain that in years to come he will realise that it was a good day's work.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: If the arguments of the hon. Member for the Gorbals division (Mr. Buchanan) were really well founded I think the Home Office would be well advised to accept this Amendment, but I wish to put some arguments to show that the discussion has been tending to get away from realities. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) laid stress, and rightly so, upon the case of underground rooms, but I would recall that these are not underground rooms in the sense of being cellars with gratings. That is not the definition at all. In the Clause there is a pretty stiff definition of what is called an underground room:
In this section the expression 'underground room' means any room which or any part of which is so situate that half or more than half the whole height thereof, measured from the floor to the ceiling, is below the surface of the footway of the adjoining street or of the ground adjoining or nearest to the room.
I put it to the House that that is a pretty stiff definition.

Mr. Broad: Would that not include those workshops which are wholly underground and rooms with gratings?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, most certainly, but my point is that it would include many other rooms which under this definition would be regarded as underground rooms but which are not nearly so objectionable as that. The hon. Member will recall that in Standing Committee I illustrated the position by pointing out that some of the lower ground floor flats in the luxury flats in the West End would come under the definition of underground rooms in this Bill.

Mr. Kelly: They would not.

Mr. Lloyd: Hon. Members will see that under this stiff definition while we shall he dealing with some rooms that are very had there will be other rooms which are not so bad. I have a complete understanding of why there are such strong feelings in regard to this subject; it is because there are some very bad underground rooms indeed. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) spoke of the places he had been in and the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) referred to "rat shops" and there are some very bad underground rooms. There is a particular reason why there are some very bad underground rooms in addition to the fact that at present there are on the Statute Book no powers at all for dealing with underground rooms. I do not know what the reasons for it were—to find them one would probably have to go back to the political situation of that day—but in Section 157 of the Factory Act of 1901 an extraordinary exception was made of what were called all men's workshops—some hon. Members may be familiar with this point—in which no women or young persons are employed. Not only were there no special powers for dealing with underground rooms, but those all men's workshops were even exempted from all the existing provisions of the Factory Acts relating to temperatures, means of ventilation, drainage, sanitary conveniences and so forth.
Therefore there is not only the problem of underground rooms but of a special class of underground rooms which have not been brought under the ordinary provisions of the Factory Acts. Hon Members have come across some extremely bad cases, but I would remind them of the improvements which will be brought about under the Bill. First of all the present exceptions with regard to all men's workshops go completely. Next,


all the ordinary provisions of the Bill with regard to cubic space, ventilation and lighting will automatically apply to these underground rooms, quite irrespective of the. Clause dealing with underground rooms as such. That is a very important point, because there are great improvements in the matter of cubic space and ventilation and a very important new Clause dealing with lighting.
Of course, we have more than that. We now have a new Clause with an entirely new power, dealing with underground rooms. I would ask hon. Members to look at the first words of this Clause, which are:
No work shall be carried on in any underground room…which is certified by the inspector for the district to be unsuitable for the purpose as regards construction, light or ventilation, or on any hygienic ground, or on the ground that adequate means of escape in case of fire are not provided.
If we had not heard the discussion arising upon the Amendment, simply for the purpose of putting the onus in a slightly different way, I think hon. Members would agree that our proposal is a great advance for dealing with underground rooms. Are we not slightly in danger of exaggerating the importance of reversing the process and putting the onus on either one side or the other? We had these discussions over and over again in the Standing Committee and I quite appreciate that there is a certain amount of importance to be attached to the matter. The really important thing is to have the power. This is a commonsense question as to the best way of doing it. Make no mistake about it, we have, in the Bill, power to deal with underground rooms, and for the first time we can get a grip upon the position.
I would now deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) about what the Home Office intend to do when they have the power. That is an important point. If the House were satisfied that we intended to use this power, it would not be of very great importance whether factory inspectors gave certificates of exemption. I would like to tell the House something which bears out what was said by the hon. Member for Gorbals and which I do not think has been said so far. I asked specially about this matter, and I was told that in the Home Office we believe

that our district inspectors know, on the whole, the bad underground rooms in their districts. The House will appreciate that that is a point of first-class importance. If the factory inspectors know, on the whole, the bad underground rooms in their districts, I can assure the House that I have it upon the authority of my right hon. Friend that one of the inspectors' first tasks after the passing of this Measure will be to deal with those underground rooms. Hon. Members will see that we therefore have a thoroughly businesslike way of dealing with this matter without undue delay. We have the power and, broadly speaking, we know the rooms, and we intend to use the power.
One point about the alternative plan. It has its disadvantages. Many plans have disadvantages which do not appear at first sight. Hon. Members who have knowledge of administration in the Home Office should consider this matter. We feel that there is a certain amount of danger in this proposal to give certificates of suitability for underground rooms. Actually, in practical administration, when you have given a certificate of suitability it is very difficult to insist upon raising the standards afterwards, because the people can say: "We have your certificate." It may be only a small technicality, but I would point out that no power is proposed to be taken to withdraw the certificates. As it stands, the scheme is not workable. Let hon. Members appreciate the advantages of our scheme. We more or less know the underground rooms and we can get into contact with them immediately after the passing of the Measure. Supposing it were desirable gradually to raise the standard of these underground rooms in the future—

Mr. Kelly: It will have to be raised.

Mr. Lloyd: I think the hon. Member does not quite understand. I meant something in addition to what is considered suitable now. If hon. Members will look at the Sub-section they will see provisions as to the opinion of the factory inspectors on all these questions of construction, light and ventilation. Suppose that within a year our general conception of these matters rose; it will be very much easier for the factory inspector, as a practical matter of administration in the course of his duties, and in the ordinary


technique of his work, to say: "I think you had better improve this or that, or we may have to regard this room as an unsuitable room for the purpose." That is a practical matter of administration. I am not trying to make a party point on this matter. We believe that we have a practical method. We believe it to be the best method and more capable of gradually raising the standard of underground rooms in the future even above the great rise in conditions which will undoubtedly take place as a result of the new power under the Bill.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Broad: Having spent a great deal of time in Committee on this matter I have no wish to delay the proceedings m this stage, but I must say that I do not think the Minister and the Under-Secretary have been well advised. It may be true that his staff know that there are underground places, but I very much doubt whether they know where those places are and whether they have them scheduled or have any idea of the extent of them. The information which was given in Committee seemed to be a revelation, not only to the Minister and the Under-Secretary but to the staff. We are now told that there are some very bad underground workshops and that some are not so bad; but they are all to be treated alike. It would have been easy for the Minister to make a division between those workshops which were not wholly below the ground level or which were not lower than so many feet below, and those which had only reflected light and no through ventilation, which should be required to be notified, on the passing of this Bill and to be provided with certificates within a definite time.
There are so many of these workshops, as anyone will know who goes about with his eyes open. They are not always in the poorest trades working on the smallest margins, but in trades that cater for the special requirements of customers. Some of the businesses are in Bond Street, and are owned by titled ladies, and special requirements of fashion are catered for by girls who work underneath the ground level. That is the kind of thing I want to stop—little girls leaving their homes to learn their trade, and going to work underground in places of this kind. Some Members of my own generation, or a little older, may have had occasion to stay in houses in

the older parts of Bayswater or the West of London, which had a semi-basement with the breakfast room downstairs, and I think they will agree that to get up in the morning and go down to that breakfast room to have their morning meal gave them a gloomy outlook for the rest of the day. These rooms were always musty and stuffy, they were never properly ventilated, and they had to he lighted with borrowed light far a large part of the day.
These are the conditions under which thousands, even tens of thousands, of women and young people work in London to-day. It is the same even in new buildings. There is a swell photographer's in the Strand where all the developing, packing and so on is done underground. It is the same in the bespoke clothing and boot trades, and in the jewellery trade. It is not so in the case of the great printing concerns, with their huge rotary presses, but it does apply to the jobbing printer who turns out your menu cards, your visiting cards, commercial stuff and so on. While the stationery department and the offices where customers are received are on the ground floor, the printing, in a large number of cases in London and other towns, is done underground. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) nods his head. He knows that that section of the trade—

Mr. McCorquodale: And they would be closed by the scheme of the Government more quickly than they would be by the scheme of the Opposition.

Mr. Broad: Underground bakehouses were to be closed 36 years ago, but the greater part of them are still in existence to-day. They were all to be closed by this method, but practical experience in the case of the baking industry has shown that the position has hardly been affected, except where slum clearance has cleared the whole building away. In most of these cases the workshops are underground because that makes access to them convenient from the ground floor level, where the customers come in. There are upper floors, some of which may be used as showrooms, and others at the top, perhaps, as store-rooms; or they may be let off because they produce a rental; there is no reason in that class of trade for forcing workers underground and keep-


ing them there, as they will be by this Clause. These places, in the main, will never be visited. Some of them, which are very bad, may be visited, but the owners of those that are not so bad will be able to say, "We are not so bad as the others leave us alone," even if the inspector does visit them. They will never be visited, however, unless some complaint is made and particular attention is drawn to them. The withdrawal of the permission to use them is to be the exception, but we want the use of them to be the exception. That is the difference between us and the Minister.
Under the Bill the general principle of underground workshops to continue, and it is to be extended in new cases, provided that the Department is notified. Certificates are not to be necessary, but only notification by those who propose to use such rooms in the future, by converting an old house or shop, and even then they can start using and go on using them without a certificate. I appeal to the Minister to meet us on this point, about which I feel very strongly. The best standard to-day in factory and workshop practice is far above what this Bill provides. The Bill is long overdue, and to say that it is a great advance means nothing at all. The Bill of 1901 was a scandalous Measure, which would never have been passed if in 1901 the workers had been as well represented in this House by those who were informed as to the workers' conditions as is the case in 1937. It makes my blood boil to think of the conditions as they were then. Every interest in this House throughout those generations had no concern for the workers, and it was only when public indignation was aroused that they were moved to say they would pretend to do something, but would do as little as possible and put it off for as long as they could. This Clause will have the same effect as the Clause to abolish underground bakehouses in the 1901 Act. Just

as that has not abolished them, this Clause, even with the Amendment that the Minister proposes, will leave underground workshops all over our great cities for another 36 years, when the Minister and I will not even be a memory in the House.

10.21 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I rise in order to remove a misapprehension under which the hon. Member is labouring. I am afraid that if the Amendment were accepted, we should see an exact repetition of the very state of affairs that he condemns so strongly with reference to underground bakehouses. The Amendment would insist upon a certificate of suitability being given to every underground room and, when it had been given, the underground room would continue to have a certificate for ever, and the result would be an exact repetition of the underground bakehouse situation which the hon. Member so strongly condemns. Our plan is a much better one. We do not want the 1901 precedent that, a certificate of suitability having been given, no change should take place and the underground rooms continue to exist, with no power of raising their standard. That is what we wish to avoid, and do avoid without the Amendment. I would now appeal to the House—it is the first appeal that I have made in the course of these discussions—now that we have the issue clearly defined to come to a decision.

Mr. David Adams: In the unlikely event of the Amendment being defeated, and in view of the general agreement that there appears to be on both sides of the House that this matter should be dealt with expeditiously, can we have an undertaking that the requisite number of additional inspectors shall be appointed?

Question put, "That the 'words which is,' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 134.

Division No. 223]
AYES.
[10.23 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Balniel, Lord
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)


Apsley, Lord
Beit, Sir A. L.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Assheton, R.
Blaker, Sir R.
Bull, B. B.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Boulton, W. W.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Carver, Major W. H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Bracken, B.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)




Channon, H.
Higgs, W. F.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Christie, J. A.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Holdsworth, H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Colville, Lt..-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hudson, Capt. A. D. M. (Hack., N.)
Remer, J. R.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cox, H. B. T.
Hunter, T.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Critchley, A.
Joel, D. J. B.
Rowlands, G.


Crooke, J. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Crossley, A. C.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Salmon, Sir I.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salt, E. W.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Latham, Sir P.
Sandys, E. D.


Culverwell, C. T.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Selley, H. R.


Dawson, Sir P.
Leckie, J. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lees-Jones, J
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Denville, Alfred
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Doland, C. F.
Little, Sir E. Graham
Simmonds, O. E.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Drewe, C.
Loftus, P. C.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Duggan, H. J.
Lyons, A. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Duncan, J. A. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Spens, W. P.


Dunglass, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Eastwood, J. F.
McKie, J. H.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Maitland, A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ellis, Sir G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Emery, J. F.
Markham, S. F.
Tate, Mavis C.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Everard, W. L.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Fildes, Sir H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P- (Tamworth)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Touche, G. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Train, Sir J.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col J. T. C.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Turton, R. H.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Grant-Ferris, R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Granville, E. L.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nall, Sir J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wells, S. R.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Guy, J. C. M.
Patrick, C. M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Peake, O.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Haslam, K. C. (Horncastle)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Porritt, R. W.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton



Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Radtord, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hepworth, J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Major Sir George Davies and Mr.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Cross.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cove, W. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Adams, D, M. (Poplar, S.)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Adamson, W. M.
Daggar, G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Dalton, H.
Groves, T. E.


Ammon, C. G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Davies, R, J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Banfield, J. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harris, Sir P. A.


Barnes, A. J.
Day, H.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Barr, J.
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Batey, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Bellenger, F. J.
Ede, J. C.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Hollins, A.


Bevan, A.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hopkin, D.


Broad, F. A.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jagger, J.


Bromfield, W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Foot, D. M.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Buchanan, G.
Gallacher, W.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Burke, W. A.
Gardner, B. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cape, T.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Kelly, W. T.


Cassells, T.
Gibbins, J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Cluse, W. S.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Kirby, B. V.


Cocks, F. S.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.







Lathan, G.
Owen, Major G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Lawson, J. J.
Paling, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Leach, W.
Parker, J.
Stephen, C.


Lee, F.
Parkinson, J. A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Leonard, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Leslie, J. R.
Pritt, D. N.
Tinker, J. J.


Logan, D. G.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Viant, S. P.


Lunn, W.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Walkden, A. G.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Ridley, G.
Walker, J.


McEntee, V. La T.
Riley, B.
Watkins, F. C.


McGhee, H. G.
Ritson, J.
Watson, W. McL.


McGovern, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Welsh, J. C.


MacLaren, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Westwood, J.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Rowson, G.
White, H. Graham


Mander, G. le M.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Marshall, F.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Maxton, J.
Sexton, T. M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Messer, F.
Shinwell, E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Milner, Major J.
Short, A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Montague, F.
Silkin, L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Silverman, S. S.



Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Simpson, F. B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, E. (Stoke)

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 44, line 4, after "is," to insert:
less than eight feet six inches in height measured from the floor to the ceiling, nor in any other such underground room if it is.
I have no desire, after the long and adequate discussion that we have had on the principle of underground workshops, to detain the House very long over this Amendment. It is fair to remind the House that the Clause as originally drafted made no provision whatever for taking into consideration the height of an underground factory or workshop. When the matter was debated in the Standing Committee it was sought to argue that the word "construction" included "height," but it was easy to see that as other things were included in the Clause which equally might have been included under the word "construction," and "height" was not included, therefore, "height" was excluded. I am glad to see that some step has been taken towards meeting that objection by the next Amendment on the Order Paper, in the name of the Home Secretary—in page 44, line 6, after "construction" to insert "height." Having listened to the Debate which has taken place and recognising that it would be ungenerous not to admit that the Clause, with that Amendment accepted, marks a great advance in the state of the law, it is appallingly difficult to understand why the Home Secretary and his Department should resist the very slight step that we are now urging him to take.
It is no use treating the matter lightly. Everybody knows that parts of London are honeycombed with this most undesir-

able type of factory and workshop. If we are going to make an advance, why not make the advance now, when we are passing a Bill which may last for a quarter of a century or more. At a time when it is expected that no major amendment of this legislation can be expected for another generation why not do the job completely, so that afterwards you will have no regrets? It is something to say that we are going to take height into consideration. If that is so, why not specify the height? We suggest that in all these underground factories no certificate of suitability shall be granted unless the height of the factory or workshop is at least 8 ft. 6 in., which is the minimum height required for factories above ground. We are not suggesting that you should apply the ordinary standard height to underground factories; we are content with something less. The Home Secretary should meet us and accept the standard.
If the Amendment is granted, at the best these workshops if they are half underground will still only be 4 ft. 3 in. above ground, and if they are more than half underground they will have still less above ground. Is it too much to ask of the Department that if they want to make a legislative advance in this matter—and everyone agrees that the time is more than ripe—they should define the terms and that the inspectors shall have some yardstick with which to measure? We say that there should be a specific figure in the Bill, and that the figure of 8 ft. 6 in. is the minimum which can reasonably be required. Surely it is a reasonable concession. If the Home Secretary is taking height into


account, he can hardly accept anything less than this. In that case why not put the matter in the Statute?

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree that the Home Secretary has gone some way to meet the point put in Committee, but I desire to stress the consideration that there should be a more precise definition in this matter. The inclusion of the word "height" in the catalogue of dimensions does go some way, but in the matter of construction light and ventilation a more precise definition may not be possible. In the matter of height alone, however, it is possible to say that below a certain minimum standard of height it is unreasonable to expect people to be employed. The real point is that in a room which is less than 8 ft. 6 in. high and of which some portion is underground you cannot expect people to be employed because it will be unfit for occupation. But I would put the point that in any new factory this specification of 8 ft. 6 in. would be readily assented to; and, therefore, it is difficult to see how it can be resisted now. I would further urge that the acceptance of the Amendment could not possibly operate harshly on the employer, because of the two reservations already in the Clause.
Already within the Clause it is possible for the inspector to suspend the operation of the certificate on account of exceptional circumstances, and it is possible for the occupier, if he is aggrieved by any decision of an inspector, to appeal against it. For those two reasons, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, if accepted, would not operate harshly against the employer. The employer is already protected by the provisions in the Bill against peremptory unfairness, but we think that some more precise standards should be fixed. Finally, I wish to urge that the height is a very important matter so far as ventilation is concerned. With insufficient height in a room, even a hurricane cannot provide a reasonable amount of ventilation. In rooms with insufficient height—I have worked in them—one has a feeling of being cooped up, a sense of claustrophobia, which no kind of mechanical ventilation can remedy.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: As was said by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, we discussed this matter in the Standing Committee, and I remember when the hon. Member brought forward an Amendment at that time, I said that 8 feet 6 inches was a fair height for a room, but that I did not feel an Amendment which would exclude in all circumstances a room having any height less than that was altogether justified. Since that time there have been some investigations by factory inspectors into the question of height, and they take the view that while there are some very bad underground rooms, some are not objectionable although they have a height which is less than the exact 8 feet 6 inches. Therefore, I think it would be unreasonable to accept an Amendment inserting that precise height. The hon. Member will appreciate that we are prepared to meet him to a considerable extent by inserting height as one of the considerations which the factory inspectors must take into account, and I hope that in view of that he will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: In page 44, line 6, after "construction," insert "height."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 44, line 13, at the end, to insert:
(2) In the case of any underground room which at the commencement of this Act does not form part of a factory or is not used as a workroom in a factory (other than for the purpose of storage or for some purpose excepted as aforesaid)—

(a) the occupier shall, before the room is used as a workroom as aforesaid, give notice in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars to the inspector for the district; and
(b) shall not use the room for any such process as may be prescribed, being a process of a hot, wet, or dusty nature, or which is liable to give off any fume, without the consent in writing of the inspector for the district."
This Amendment contains the restrictions that we propose with regard to underground rooms, and it represents a very considerable tightening up of the provisions in this respect. For instance, before the room is used as a workroom, the occupier will be required to give


notice on the prescribed form to the factory inspector, and the intention is that in this notice he shall give particulars as regards construction, means of ventilation and lighting, means of escape, and so forth, thus making it possible for the inspector to judge from the particulars whether the room is likely to be suitable for use as an underground workroom. Secondly, it is proposed to prohibit the use of these rooms, without the consent in writing of the inspector for the district, for the purpose of any process which the Home Secretary may determine is a process of a hot, wet or dusty nature, or liable to give off any fumes. I hope the House will accept that provision sympathetically. It has arisen out of experiences such as that instanced by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) of underground bakehouses and the unsuitability of underground rooms being used for hot processes. I think the House will sympathise with these stricter provisions in regard to future underground rooms.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Short: We do not oppose the Amendment, but I would like to point out that when we were discussing my Amendment in relation to underground rooms, the Home Secretary found great administrative difficulties in the way of adopting a proposal similar to this. In this Amendment be is putting the liability on the occupier, and I do not see why, on my Amendment, which has been rejected, the officers of the Department should have been unwilling to call upon all occupiers of underground rooms to give them the information which is being provided for in this Amendment. It passes one's comprehension why the Home Secretary should be willing to adopt this method in one case and make it appear that there are administrative difficulties which prevent its adoption in the other case. However, the Amendment will be an improvement.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Jagger: I intervene only to point out that on the previous Amendment we were told how disastrous it would be if the inspectors had to give the certificates while now, in the very next Amendment submitted by the Government, it is proposed to give these powers of certification to the inspectors. It would seem that the

Government are not prepared to accept a proposal from this side which they are willing to adopt, in other cases, themselves.

Sir S. Hoare: It may seem so, but it is not the case. In the case of existing underground rooms of which, as the hon. Member knows, there is a very large number it would be a very big undertaking to start a general certification, but we feel that in the case of new applications, which are likely to be few, we can deal with the matter in this way.

Mr. Jagger: But on another point, we were also told by the right hon. Gentleman that if a certificate were once given it could not be withdrawn. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman got his law from, but that was what he said.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: There is here an opportunity, in the case of new buildings, for the factory inspector to give a certificate for the use of underground rooms for whatever processes it may be desired to carry on in them. Under the Town Planning Act and various municipal Acts, municipalities have the right to decide as to the user of premises. Are we to understand that the certificate of the factory inspector in these cases will take precedence of the decision of a municipality, under the Town Planning Act or other authority, as to the use of premises?

10.49 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I wish to put a question to the Lord Advocate or whoever intends to reply for the Government. The memorandum issued by the Home Office prior to the introduction of the Bill, stated that its objects were to improve health standard in factories and to bring about uniformity of administration among factory inspectors. Will not these words:
without the consent in writing of the inspector of the district
leave the Clause open to various interpretations, and in that case will it carry out the undertaking given in the memorandum?

10.50 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: In reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), I would say that the certificate granted by the factory inspector would have validity only for the purpose of the Factories Acts, and would have no necessary bearing at


all on the requirements of any general town planning statute or any local Statute. I am not familiar with the local Statutes, but certainly as regards the general Planning Acts the factory inspector's certificate would not have validity.

Mr. Lloyd: In answer to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), I can see his point, but, of course, all the inspectors act under the directions of the chief inspector and, therefore, there is ample provision for central authority and uniform administration.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 44, line 16, after "certificate," to insert:
or the refusal of the consent, as the case may
The next three Amendments, with this one, are purely drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 44, line 18, leave out "the appeal," and insert "an appeal against a decision under Sub-section (1) of this Section."

In line 19, leave out "this Section," and insert "that Sub-section."

In line 20, after "shall," insert "in all cases."—[The Lord Avocate.]

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I beg to move, in page 44, line 24, to leave out from "that," to "below," in line 25, and to insert:
the surface of the floor is more than three feet.
In moving this Amendment I am reminded of the expression used by the Under-Secretary earlier this evening that they were desirous of stiffening the definition of an underground room, and in many ways they have made an attempt at improvement. We think that the improvement is not adequate and we suggest for the purpose of the definition that any room where the floor is three feet below the surface of the ground should be considered an underground room. As the definition stands it means that any room, half of the height of which is below ground, is considered an underground room. It means, in effect, that we are to perpetuate for some considerable time

these wholly underground rooms. We consider that rooms into which daylight cannot possibly enter should never be entertained for use as workshops or factories. I rather wish, while we have been considering this question, there had been a larger number of Members in the House who had had the experience either of working in such rooms themselves or of having had members of their families working in them. In that case they would have been more aware of the deleterious effects on the health of these people. I hope the Amendment will receive the consideration that it deserves. If the House is sincere in its desire to wipe out these underground cellars, of which we have such a large number in the West End of London, it will be prepared to support the Amendment.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: This is another matter that was discussed in the Standing Committee, and as a result of that discussion I promised to make inquiries. On consideration, it appears that the requirement embodied in the Amendment would take no account of whether or not a room was relatively high, and that is a rather important aspect of the matter, because even if the floor were three feet below the level of the surrounding ground, if it was a very high room, it would not have anything like the same disadvantages as if it were a low room. I think the House will appreciate that point. We have made inquiries from the Home Office inspectors, and those inquiries indicate that there is no need to stiffen the present provision in this respect. This Amendment would have the effect of making a room an underground room if the wall on one side of the room was three feet below the ground level and the floor sloped down a little. That is a difficulty which I do not think the hon. Gentleman has foreseen, but it makes it quite impossible to accept this Amendment.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I think the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend might have consulted with the Ministry of Health with regard to their town planning scheme and model by-laws, which would certainly show him a better way of dealing with this matter than is proposed in the Bill. I would urge that this Amendment should be accepted, even if a room was eight


feet six or nine feet in height, which is very rarely the case now in an industrial building.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 53.—(Basement bakehouses.)

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 44, line 34, to leave out "lawfully."
Shortly speaking, the position is that bakehouses which received certificates of suitability under the Act of 1901, and it is a serious thing that there was no power at that time to withdraw those certificates. Many hon. Members are opposed to underground bakehouses, particularly the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), and undoubtedly there are objections to them. Before deciding what course we should adopt we had an investigation made and the result went to show that while the conditions in some of the basement bakehouses were bad, the conditions in others were not bad. We thought the best way to deal with the matter was to make a provision, as we do by this group of Amendments, for recertification or examination once again to see whether, in the: light of modern conditions, they are suitable to be used as basement bakehouses. It they are found not to be suitable by the district council, the certificate will be withdrawn. If, on the other hand, the conditions are found to be all right, it will be continued.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 44, line 35, after "Act," insert:
and a certificate of suitability had been issued by the district council under an enactment repealed by this Act in respect thereof."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Banfield: I beg to move, in page 44, line 35, after "Act," to insert:
and in any case shall not be so used after the expiration of five years after the date of the passing of this Act.
The purpose of the Amendment is to prohibit altogether within a period of five years the use of underground bakehouses. Reference has just been made by the Under-Secretary to the 1901 Act. There is a remarkable history in connection with underground bakehouses and the Act of Igor. At that time Mr. John Burns

was a Member of the House and was very interested in the question. He urged eloquently in the House that these bakehouses should be done away with. After a great deal of pressure and a number of eloquent speeches and pledges on his part, a provision was put into the Act whereby these bakehouses should be declared suitable and that no further basement bakehouses should be allowed. There was a good deal of gratification among those who work in bakehouses because it was considered that Mr. john Burns had abolished underground bakehouses. We were so grateful that we had a national collection and presented Mr. John Burns with a testimonial for his noble work in abolishing underground workhouses. The argument was this, "A certificate of suitability for underground bakehouses already in existence will be given, and as time goes on they will be closed up, there will be no further underground bakehouses allowed, and consequently they will be done away with."
What happened was contrary to all expectations. These certificates of suitability were issued, and unless the premises have been absolutely closed for a period of, I think, six months, they can still continue to be used as bakehouses. In 1901 the majority of those underground bakehouses were already old, had been inexistence probably for 40 or 50 years, and are now at least 36 years older than they were in 1901. There have been no new underground bakehouses since. Some of these places may not be so bad as others, but I say, speaking from my practical experience, that they should all be done away with, in the interests of the health of the men working there, in the interests of the public health, and in the interests of the public, because it is essential that food should be made under decent and proper conditions.
I have no quarrel with the employers in this instance, but with all due respect to them I deny that it is possible to make bread under decent conditions in what are really underground cellars, such as hon. Members can see for themselves in the West End of London. We now have a new Factories Bill, 36 years after the last Factory Act was passed, and I do not know when we shall get another, but it would be awful to think that some 30 years hence a Member might have to stand up in this House and ask for underground bakehouses to be abolished.


Let us take advantage of the existing opportunity. After all, there has been 36 years' notice that underground bakehouses were going to be closed. The bakers were told that they must fully understand that sooner or later the underground places would have to go, and I suggest that it would now be quite enough to give them five years—

Mr. McGovern: Hard labour!

Mr. Bonfield: No. I do not want anybody to accuse me of attempting to ruin some poor master baker or unfortunate widow. Heaven forbid that I should be accused of that. They have had all that long notice, and I suggest that they should he given another five years, and that at the end of that time these underground places should be done away with altogether. I notice that the Government have put down an Amendment to introduce a new Sub-section in respect of this matter, and I should like to be allowed to make reference to it. In that Amendment it is suggested that there should be an inspection of these bakehouses once in five years. I want the right hon. Gentleman to remember that up till now all bakehouses, underground ones included, have been dealt with by the local authorities. It is suggested in this new Sub-section that they should still he dealt with by the local authorities. For all these years the local authorities have been inspecting these bakehouses and have practically agreed that in some degree they should be regarded as suitable. You will make the local authority responsible for saying whether their bakehouses are suitable or not, and that will be a tremendous mistake. The responsibility should be put upon the Department. The local authorities are no solution of the problem, because their representatives will go and look round these places, which will have been got ready for the occasion, and will say: "It looks a lovely place." The local authority will say: "We know Mr. Jones and his sons. They are respectable people, and have always been good ratepayers. Certainly, give him his certificate. Why should we put any pres, sure upon a man like that?" That will go on for five years, and at the end of that time the game will be repeated.
In the main, these places are not fit for men to work in. The right hon. Gentleman's factory inspectors will take him, if he has never seen one of these places,

down some cellar steps into a hot and fetid room in which the temperature is about 105 or 106. There he will see four or five men stripped to the waist, working in singlets, with their boots on, and the sweat pouring off them because the place is so hot and there is no ventilation. He will say that that is not a fit place for men to work in or for food to be prepared in.
Surely the time has come to deal with this situation. The case was won in 1909. The Government of that day knew very little about labour conditions, compared with what we know now, but even that Government said that such conditions should be done away with. Now, 36 years have gone past and very few of these places have been done away with. It would be no hardship to the employers, provided they had their five years' notice.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to remember that in the days when these places were made bakeovens were built in them. They took a great deal of work. The ovens were built of brick and stone and were not bad ovens, a lot better than we have to-day. To-day we do not build that kind of oven. You can build a bakehouse oven in almost any kind of room, because you have only to bolt so many pieces of iron and steel together and then get heat, whether by gas or electricity or by a furnace at the back, and you have an oven such as bakers use to-day.
The problem of finding space for new places is not so great as it was. Hon. Members now in the Chamber are interested in the baking business and control between 24 and 32 shops. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon) is here, and he could support me in this argument. The spectacle of the hon. Gentleman championing the small employer always makes me laugh. A few years ago every one of those places which I have mentioned as being now under the control of one firm, had an oven. Most of them have an oven now which is not used at all. Many of these businesses have been centralised, and one place, in the majority of cases, is now turning out as much as the whole of those shops. Therefore spare ovens are there which can be used to replace these underground bakehouses. I am sure that no good employer, like the hon. Member for Harrow, would support these under-


ground bakehouses. The hon. Member would say, if he got up to speak, which I do not suppose he will do, "You are quite right, Banfield; these things ought to be done away with. We do not have them ourselves; we have beautiful place's for our men to work in." But I expect he would also say: "But let us consider these poor small bakers. They have wives and children to support. Do not let us do anything to injure them if we can help it." Nevertheless, the big wholesale houses swallow up these small people.
I hope the Government will be able to meet me in this matter. In the provinces the vast majority of these underground bakehouses have disappeared. London is the one place where this evil is rampant. When I was speaking yesterday about the abolition of night baking, I told the House how you could walk along the streets in the West End of London and see the patches where the wet pavement had become dry from the heat of the bakers' ovens underneath. They should be done away with on moral and hygienic grounds, and on every other ground that one can think of, for the sake of the health and happiness and comfort of the men who work there and for the protection of the public as a whole, and I ask the House to support me on this Amendment. We are going to take it to a Division. Would it be possible, for once, for hon. Members of this House really to vote as they feel they should vote according to their conscience? Is it absolutely necessary that they should support the Government? The Government will not resign if we decide to abolish underground bakehouses. In fact, if the House supported me, I daresay the Home Secretary would say. "Well, after all, it is a good job we have got rid of them," and everyone would be happy. I hope that hon. Members will, on this occasion at any rate, do something to bring a little comfort into the lives of the hard-working men in the baking industry.

Mr. Jagger: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope that the brevity with which I do so will not be taken as any measure of my earnestness, but at this late hour I do not wish to detain the House with more than a formal word.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I think that, if there is any question of presenting a testimonial to the Home Secretary on the abolition of underground bakehouses to which I am sure we should all be very glad to subscribe, it would have to follow the event, unless we were able to arrange for the transfer of the gold plate which I believe was given to Mr. John Burns about 36 years ago; but the right hon. Gentleman would certainly deserve a testimonial of some kind if he abolished these underground bakehouses. We are faced once again, as we have been on several occasions yesterday and to-day, with a choice of methods. We all want to achieve the same result, and the question is, which is the better way of doing so? I am rather disappointed at the way which the Government have chosen. When this matter was discussed in Committee, a general feeling was expressed on all sides that long enough notice had been given—that 36 years was ample and it was rather hoped that the Government were going to set a definite term, whatever it might be, to the future existence of these underground bakehouses—a term such as that for which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) has pleaded so, eloquently. I am sorry they have not seen their way to do so. No doubt, what they are doing is an advance, as are so many of the other proposals that they have made. At the same time, I do not think it goes far enough and I shall support my hon. Friend in the appeal that he has made for a final term.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: We are providing the essential thing, which is to insist on proper hygienic and sanitary conditions for these bakehouses, but is it necessary to go further, as the hon. Member desires, and finish all these bakehouses in five years in view of the position? The position is that these bakehouses are disappearing at present. Their numbers are falling the whole time They are, in fact, being swallowed up by the large concerns. It is a fact, and we ought to take it into consideration, that all these basements are small-master bakehouses. The essential thing is to see that public health requirements are met. The Government are not prepared to bring the life of these master bakers to an end.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: This is indeed one of the lamest excuses. Just imagine what they are doing. In every factory in the land where the conditions are not up to standard there is an over-riding power in the hands of the factory inspector over the local authority. Here, however, the local authority is paramount. Why that should be the case I do not understand. Then the hon. Gentleman says the small man will have to close down. What do we find the Ministry of Health doing when there is a slum clearance? I have seen slum clearance in Manchester where

they have made acres of land absolutely derelict and cleared away shopkeepers by the score. In fact, these underground bakehouses are nothing but slums in themselves, and we are a little astonished that the hon. Gentleman has not availed himself of the opportunity and stated definitely that, in the interest of the health of the community, they ought to be wiped out at least within five years.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 187.

Division No. 224.]
AYES.
[11.25 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Holdsworth, H.
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hollins, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Barr, J.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F. J.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Bevan, A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cassells, T.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W, S.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)
McGovern, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
White, H. Graham


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibbins, J.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Owen, Major G.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, J.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bull, B. B.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Albery, Sir Irving
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Carver, Major W. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Beit, Sir A. L.
Cary, R. A.


Apsley, Lord
Blaker, Sir R.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Aske, Sir R. W.
Boulton, W. W.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)


Assheton, R.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Channon, H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bracken, B.
Christie, J. A.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Collox, Major W. P.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)




Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Joel, D. J. B.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cox, H. B. T.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Keeling, E. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Critchley, A.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F, C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q,
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Crossley, A, C.
Latham, Sir P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Rowlands, G.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Culverwell, C. T.
Leckie, J. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salmon, Sir I.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Salt, E. W.


Dawson, Sir P.
Lloyd, G. W.
Sandys, E. D.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Loftus, P. C.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Denville, Alfred
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Selley, H. R.


Doland, G. F.
Lyons, A. M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Duggan, H. J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Duncan, J. A. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Simmonds, O. E.


Eastwood, J. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Ellis, Sir G.
McKie, J. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Emery, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Markham, S. F.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Spens, W. P.


Everard, W. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chlswick)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gilmour, Lt -Col Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Tate, Mavis C.


Granville E. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Touche, G. C.


Grimston, R. V.
Nall, Sir J.
Train, Sir J.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Turton, R. H.


Gunston, Capt. O. W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Guy, J. C. M.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Patrick, C. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peake, O.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Perkins, W. R. D.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hepworth, J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Porritt, R. W.
Wells, S. R.


Higgs, W. F.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Holmes, J. S.
Radford, E. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rankin, Sir R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hunter, T.
Rayner, Major R. H.



Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Cross and Captain Dugdale.


Question put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 44, line 37, at the end, insert:
(2) It shall be the duty of every district council to carry out, in the year beginning at the date of the commencement of this Act and in every 11th succeeding year after that year, an examination of every basement bakehouse in respect of which a certificate of suitability has been issued and—

(a) if as the result of the examination the council are not satisfied that the bakehouse is suitable for use as such as regards construction, height, light, ventilation, and any hygienic respect they shall give notice in writing that the certificate shall cease to have effect after the expiration of such period, not less than one month, as may be specified in the notice, and the basement bakehouse shall not be used as a bakehouse after the expiration of that period; or
(b) if the council are satisfied that the bakehouse is suitable as regards the matters aforesaid, they shall give notice in writing that the certificate shall continue to operate until their next examination of the bakehouse.

(3) Where the district council give notice that a certificate of a basement bakehouse is to cease to have effect, the occupier may, within twenty-one days of the notice, appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction, and the court may, if it is satisfied that the bakehouse is suitable as regards the matters aforesaid, by order direct that the certificate shall continue to operate and that the bakehouse may be used as such until the next examination by the council, or may by order extend the period at the expiration of which the certificate is to cease to have effect.

In page 45, line 4, leave out "provisions of," and insert "prohibition of the use of basement bakehouses under."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

Ordered, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932) (IRON AND STEEL GOODS).

11.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I beg to move:
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, 1937, dated the twenty-fifth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-fifth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved.
It is a little difficult at this late hour to know how much, or rather how little, to say on this Order. I am most anxious to avoid appearing casual, ignorant or evasive, and I am equally anxious not to deserve the accusation of being longwinded. I do not think the House will wish me to go into the earlier action taken under Section 6 of the Finance Act, 1936, which set up the licensing scheme for iron and steel imports in order to implement the Agreement of July, 1935, between the British Iron and Steel Federation and the Continental Steel Cartel. I will, therefore, take hon. Members immediately to 22nd March of this year when the Additional Duties No. 3 Order was discussed in this House, and produced a most interesting Debate of three and a half-hours, in which Mr. Runciman, as he then was, and my distinguished predecessor who is now Minister of Transport, participated. On that occasion the whole situation was explained at length to the House and hon. Members were made aware of the reasons for which the 10 per cent. additional duty was removed from the iron and steel imports which come in under the licensing scheme, leaving them only subject to the general ad valorem duty of xo per cent. It is hardly necessary to say that the House on that occasion gave a favourable reception to the Order. That particular Order, No. 3, contained a Schedule giving a list of goods to which the licensing scheme applied, and the descriptions of some of these goods were qualified by limits of value, in such a way that goods of those descriptions exceeding the value limits shown could not be imported into the country except at the normal and higher rate of duty. The articles in question were ingots, blooms

billets and slabs, £7 10s. per ton; angles, shapes and sections, £15 per ton; bars and rods, £9 per ton; and plates, sheets, hoop and strip £16 per ton. The particular limits set down in the Schedule were those which were used in negotiating the commercial agreements with Norway and Sweden in 1933, and we had these particular limits of value for the purpose of conventionalising the duties on iron and steel goods which exceeded these limits. These particular figures were appreciably above the prices which had ruled for a long time for the main range of imports with which the Continental Steel Cartel was concerned; and, since the great bulk of our imports from cartel countries were of a lower quality of iron and steel than the goods covered by the agreements of 1933, we found it extremely convenient to adopt these particular figures as the upper limits for the operation of the licensing scheme.
It was to goods of these particular kinds below the values I have stated that No. 3 Order, which the House passed without a Division less than three months ago, applied. Since then there has been a world wide rise in the prices of iron and steel goods, the result of which has been that the prices of certain products in the cartel agreement now exceed in some cases the values I have mentioned. In consequence they do not qualify for the reduced duty, with the result that the flow of imports is restricted. I imagine that the House will agree that it is eminently desirable that no impediment should he placed in the way of the smooth working of the cartel agreement; but it may be argued that we should have made an Order raising these figures slightly or even appreciably, rather than removing them altogether. Had we done so, we should have found that instability of prices abroad would have made the fixing of new limits extremely difficult, and we might well have had to come to the House again after a very short period for a further revision of the Order. For that reason, the Import Duties Advisory Committee concluded that the best way to adjust this position was to remove the limits of value entirely. That is the recommendation which they made to the Treasury and to which this Order gives effect. This Order exempts from additional duty consignments of the goods mentioned in Order No. 3, to which I have referred, which exceed in value the


limits given in that schedule—subject, of course, to the necessary certificates of origin and quota. Order No. 6 which we are now discussing might be described as simply adjusting the position in Order No. 3, to the altered circumstances of to-day.
There is one further point which I feel bound to mention to the House. Just as the rise in prices has excluded certain products from the advantages of the lower rate of duty, so also the removal of the value limits which we are asking the House to authorise to-night will give the advantage of getting into this lower range to certain higher-quality products, for example; alloy and special steels which are not normally controlled by the Cartel or regarded as within the terms of the main agreement. There is some danger that if there were an importation of unlimited quantities of these higher quality products, certain people in this country might be injured, notably the Sheffield steel makers; and in order to cope with that possible danger, arrangements have been made with the countries concerned (that is, the Cartel countries and Sweden) to regulate the proportion of their quotas which shall be allocated to these higher quality products. We have further the assurance that the Import Duties Advisory Committee will keep the position under review and will be prepared to recommend further action to the House if it is necessary to safeguard the position of our own producers. I hope that in these circumstances the House will be prepared, without further ado, to approve this Order; but I shall of course do my best to answer any questions that hon. Members may wish to put.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: In view of the very long discussion which we had on this matter last March, I do not propose to detain the House by debating the amending Order which has just been explained by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I cannot refrain, however, from saying that whenever it suits the convenience of the Government to do so, they are prepared to repeat the old cry of their tariff predecessors that it is always the foreigner who pays the tax, but that when it becomes necessary, in the case of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman called high quality products, to reduce the prices in this country of the taxed commodity,

then the only way of doing it, the Government say, is to take off the duty, which seems ex hypothesi to prove that we in this country have been the unfortunate people who have had the burden of paying the duty.
I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement that the Import Duties Advisory Committee will carefully watch the situation will mean that there will be no continuance of the disabilities upon any of the steel manufacturers in Sheffield. I am not quite clear from what he said as to whether there will still remain certain categories of manufactured steel and certain classes of steel outside the Cartel which will not now get the favourable terms of the removal of the duty. I am very troubled about this at this time when we want to re-open international trade throughout the World. I gather that there are some of the classes which are now outside the Cartel agreement and which do not get the reduction of 'duty, which will now get it. I think that that is all to the good. I should like to have an assurance, not only that the Advisory Committee is watching the position, but that the Government will try to improve and not choke international trade.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I should like to ask for an assurance that in particular categories this will apply to non-Cartel countries. I think that we are on very dangerous ground when not only is there an arrangement between different countries who are carrying out this Cartel agreement, but—I think I detected in the right hon. Gentleman's speech—an acknowledgment that there is an arrangement between the different Cartel countries as to the quota which they should sell of different categories. It is getting to a fine art when not only can they agree as to the amounts of the total tonnage spread through all the categories, but get even to the point where they say that in certain circumstances they will limit certain categories. It shows what arrangements can be made and how fine the distinctions can be drawn under these Cartel arrangements. I should like to know whether these classes from the non-Cartel countries will enjoy the same rates of duty as those from the Cartel countries.

11.48 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I should like to say most certainly that the non-Cartel


countries will be given a quota of these particular high-class goods, which will correspond to too per cent. of their 1934 imports, at the reduced duty. It is the policy of the Board of Trade—and of the federation—to see that the non-Cartel countries do get a fair deal.

Mr. Alexander: What of the other classes of steel?

Captain Wallace: High-class steel will get an increased quota.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, 1937, dated the twenty-fifth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-fifth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved

Orders of the Day — DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ACT, 1934.

11.49 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I beg to move,
That the Clearing Office (Rumania) Amendment Order, 1937, dated the first day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the seventh day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved.
A word of explanation only is necessary. The House will recollect that a clearing system was set up with Rumania in June of last year. I need not enter now into the reasons for that. Circumstances have changed somewhat since the establishment of that system. The sterling receipts of the Clearing Office have very substantially exceeded what was then expected. Negotiations were entered into and a new agreement was signed in London. That agreement forms the Schedule to the Order which is now before the House. The new agreement makes some changes which are all beneficial. The allocation for the service of the British holdings of the Rumanian public debt remains unchanged, but, owing to the fact that there were larger sterling receipts than had been anticipated, a surplus over requirements is expected, from which £84,000 a year is to be taken for miscellaneous financial payments in this country. The limit on the amount allocated to short-term banking debts and

credits in favour of this country has been raised from £50,000 to £100,000. It has been agreed to continue the allocation for outstanding trade debts due to United Kingdom exporters at the rate of £400,000 a year. The proportion of the total receipts allotted to trade purposes should provide for a substantial increase in the amount of the United Kingdom export trade; but I would utter a word of warning to exporters not to rush too lightly into the trade, or without having due regard to every circumstance. Owing to the larger total receipts of the clearing, it has been possible to meet the request of the National Bank of Rumania for an increase in the free sterling placed at its disposal.
In general, it will be seen, the changes are not very great. As far as concessions are made to the Rumanian Government, they are justified by the larger volume of sterling receipts available, and essential United Kingdom requirements are fully met. Full provision is made to cover the service of British-held Rumanian bonds at the rates at present agreed on by the bondholders; the limit on the allocation to short-term banking debts to the United Kingdom has been extended to double the previous amount; there is an allocation for trade purposes which should enable an increase to take place in United Kingdom trade and provision has been made for a further substantial reduction of outstanding trade debts. I would be happy, if it were possible to remove the clearing arrangement altogether; but that is not feasible. It was necessary to keep it for reasons which the House knows, but I am glad to say the position has improved, and an agreement has been made which will, I think, provide more opportunities for trade with this country.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: These debt clearing arrangements are always complicated, but I understand that the relationship between Rumania and this country has so far improved that a better arrangement is being made in this case, than that which existed previously. I cannot say that I followed all the details of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, but I gather that we are now importing from Rumania a considerably larger quantity of goods than heretofore, and that the payments, therefore, by British nationals into the Exchange Account are larger than they were in the past. The


effect is to enable outstanding liabilities of the Rumanian Government or the people of Rumania to British nationals to be met; hence this new agreement. If I have interpreted the position correctly, I do not think it is necessary at this stage to make any further statement upon it.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I do not think there is any city in be country more interested in this clearing agreement than Bradford, but at this time of night one does not wish to enter into a discussion on the subject. We have been discussing the Factories Bill all day; we have had the Import Duties Order dealing with iron and steel and now we have this Motion. I am not complaining, but I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to bring these matters on for discussion at a time when it would be possible to raise questions upon them, such as some of us would like to raise on this Motion. If that were done, it would be a great assistance to the House generally in the transaction of business. I hope the Treasury will see that the terms of the agreement are carried out. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows what has happened in the past in regard to certain agreements which we have signed. There was art occasion only a few weeks ago when a case was brought to the notice of the Board of Trade. I am not suggesting that it applies to this agreement, but, speaking generally, I think our commercial attachés in the different capitals should press upon Governments who have signed agreements with us the necessity for carrying out their contracts. As I say, I am not referring specially to this particular agreement, but I think there are cases in which a rather stiffer attitude should be adopted, on behalf of the traders of this country in seeing that agreements are carried out properly.

Resolved,
That the Clearing Office (Rumania) Amendment Order, 1937, dated the first day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the seventh day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for the regulation of wages of workers in agriculture in Scotland and for purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland under the said Act, and any expenses which are sanctioned by them of any agricultural wages board, or of any committee thereof, or of any agricultural wages committee or of any sub-committee thereof, including any expenses incurred with such sanction by any members of any such board, committee, or sub-committee in the performance of their duties, and any sums paid with such sanction to any such members by way of compensation for loss of time, in each case up to an amount approved by the Treasury."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Wedderburn.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.